The Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus: A Reappraisal of the Data and New Approaches

The Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus:A Reappraisal of the Data and New Approaches

ABSTRACTA reappraisal of the artifacts and chronological evidence for the earliest occupation failed to recognize any loca-tion in Eastern Europe with solid evidence for a Lower Paleolithic occupation. Human occupations reported by various researchers at Gerasimovka, Bogatiry, and Kinjal are concluded to be “possibilith” locations rather than unquestionable artifact assemblages. Currently, only Treugol’naya Cave has reliably dated evidence for human settlement in Eastern Europe, from the beginning through the middle of the Middle Pleistocene. In Eastern Eu-rope, three assemblages from Khryashchy and Mikhailovskoe, and possibly Pogreby and Dubossary, appear to be the only locations that tentatively can be compared (despite problems with these materials) with Treugol’naya. All these Lower Paleolithic occupations yielded the Pre-Mousterian or Tayacian small tool industries with some pebble tools, but without Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technique. These data suggest that Eastern Europe lies outside the distribution range of the Acheulian techno-complex demarcated by the “Movius Line.” Additionally, data now available show that large-scale human colonization of Eastern Europe began with the spread of leaf point assemblages at the end of the Middle Pleistocene. It can be suggested that these lithic assemblages were produced by the first Neanderthal populations to appear in Eastern Europe; and, these assemblages may have developed from the Upper Acheulian or the earlier Middle Paleolithic leaf point industries in Central Europe.

In the Southern Caucasus, the available chronological data indicate that the Acheulian complex has a later tempo-ral appearance here compared to the Upper Acheulian or Acheulo-Yabrudian in Western Asia. Two main Upper Acheulian industrial variants currently can be recognized in the Southern Caucasus. The first, called the Kudarian by the author (from the caves of Kudaro I, Kudaro III, and Azykh), is characterized by lithics made from mostly siliceous rocks, rare Acheulian bifaces, and non-Levallois flaking technique. The second variant is characterized by lithics made from volcanic rocks, numerous Acheulian bifaces, and often more laminar or Levallois debitage. It can be suggested that there are independent origins for these Southern Caucasus Upper Acheulian industrial variants. Possible roots of the Acheulian assemblages of Kudarian variant might be in the local earlier Lower Paleolithic small tool assemblages (with some pebble tools but without Acheulian bifaces). The other Caucasus variant of the Upper Acheulian appears to be related to the Levantine Upper Acheulian. Conclusions that are more precise require additional analysis and new finds.

INTRODUCTION

During last 15 years, the Lower Paleolithic of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus remained outside of main

discussions of Paleolithic archaeology in Russia. These discussions mainly emphasized Micoquian or Upper Pa-leolithic themes including the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. Obviously, the small number of the Lower Pa-leolithic sites has deterred the majority of researchers from working on issues related to this time period. Only Liubin has recently published three monographs (Liubin 1998a; Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а; Lioubine 2002) on the Lower Paleolithic in the Caucasus. Publications by other authors on the Lower Paleolithic include books by Gladilin and Sitliviy (1990), Kuharchuk and Mesiats (1991), Golovanova (1994), and Doronichev et al. (2007), all in Russian. Ad-ditionally, Praslov (1995) published a brief review of the Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe, and Lower Paleolithic research also has been supplemented by short sketches in Hoffecker (2002) and Stepanchuk (2006). Separate articles

on this subject published within the past 15 years are most-ly cited in the bibliography.

The author’s special interest in the Lower Paleolithic resulted from a study of Treugol’naya Cave—a Lower Pa-leolithic site in the Northern Caucasus. Working with Go-lovanova, the cave was opened and then excavated over several years (Doronichev 2000; 2001; 2004; Doronichev and Golovanova 2003; Doronichev et al. 2004; Doronichev et al. 2007). The data recovered during the complex, inter-disciplinary research here has allowed, for the first time, a study of the peculiarities of the Lower Paleolithic in the Northern Caucasus and Eastern Europe as a whole; it is based on precise stratigraphy, reliable dates, and faultless typological classification of the assemblages of stone arti-facts.

Before the discovery of Treugol’naya Cave, Lower Paleolithic research in Eastern Europe was based mostly on surface materials and supplemented in some locations by isolated artifacts found in Pleistocene deposits. Unfor-

PaleoAnthropology 2008: 107−157. © 2008 PaleoAnthropology Society. All rights reserved. ISSN 1545-0031

VLADIMIR B. DoRoNICHEVANO Laboratory of Prehistory, 14 Linia 3−11, St. Petersburg 190034, RUSSIA; [email protected]

108 • PaleoAnthropology 2008

tunately, even when it was possible to find stratified sites (Khryashchy, Mikhailovskoe, and probably, Pogreby), de-tailed excavations were not carried out. Artifacts found in sections or test pits were combined with surface collections (these three sites plus Korolevo 1). An additional disadvan-tage for Lower Paleolithic research in Eastern Europe has been the fact that many old collections are either entirely (Gerasimovka and the lowest assemblages [VIII and VII] in Korolevo) or partly (assemblage VI of Korolevo, as well as Pogreby, Dubossary, and Khryashchy) composed of stone artifacts that are likely unworked—that is, they have no at-tributes resulting from human flaking or trimming. Prob-lems associated with these assemblages will be considered in more detail below.

For this study, the author also offers a critical analysis of some finds either that have no dated geological contexts or that do not satisfy the typological criteria that allow un-conditional recognition of them as artifacts. Finds of the latter sort have become especially frequent in the last few years and may be a reflection of crisis tendencies in Russian Paleolithic archaeology.

“POSSIBILITH” LOCATIONS ANDCRITERIA fOR THE RELIABILITy

Of ARCHAEOLOgICAL DATA

Even insignificant deviation from the true leads to infinite mistakes further along (Democritus)

Eastern Europe surpasses in size Western and Central Eu-rope. Nevertheless, despite the efforts of many scientists to find the earliest (Pre-Mousterian) sites within the territory of Eastern Europe, the number of such finds is quite small. Although reviews by Praslov (1984) and Liubin (1984) in the volume The Paleolithic of the USSR, issued more than 20 years ago, appeared to have a rather representative list of probable Pre-Mousterian sites in Eastern Europe, includ-ing the Northern Caucasus, the quality of these sites left much to be desired. The majority of them were represented by surface, frequently isolated finds, or artifacts found to-gether with later period lithics. Not only could one easily question the antiquity of these artifacts (their geological age), but also the status of the finds as human products was frequently doubtful.

For example, more than 35 years ago Liubin (1969) wrote about the lithic finds in Tcimbal Quarry on the Tama-nian Peninsula and Ignatenkov Kutok on the Psekups River in the Kuban River Basin that these artifacts lacked:

“that degree of scientific reliability, which is necessary for formulation of responsible historical conclusions. They have been selected from mixed multiple-age sur-face finds through typological analysis and have no suf-ficient stratigraphical, paleontological and geological substantiation” (p. 154).

Since then no new archaeological research on these sites has been undertaken (Shchelinski 2005). The analysis of the

stratigraphic positions of the lithics shows that there is little chance that that these Paleolithic finds are associated with the ancient fauna. This is because, in the Middle Pleisto-cene pebble terraces of the Psekups River, there are jointly bedded lithics and fauna which come from the Pliocene deposits into which the river valley was cut (Nesmeyanov 1999: 184). A typological analysis indicates that the artifact attribution is to only the end of the Lower Paleolithic or the Upper Acheulian (Nesmeyanov and Golovanova 1988).

Until recently, Gerasimovka (on the coast of the Sea of Azov near Taganrog) was identified as the earliest human occupation in the Russian Plain (Praslov 2001). Praslov re-covered the lithics in question in 1960 by selecting them from a pebble level with natural flint and Tiraspolian fauna. “A careful selection among rather abundant flint pebbles and boulders has allowed identification of only 7 pieces with authentic traces of their trimming by primitive people” (Praslov 1968: 19]. Klein (1966: 32), however, was doubtful that these stones were artifacts. Recently, another independent expert, Hoffecker (2002: 44), examined the collection and also noted that none of these pieces were in-disputable artifacts.

Attempts to present typologically poorly defined flaked stones—similar in their selection from naturally bro-ken rocks to the Gerasimovka redeposited geological con-texts—as Lower Paleolithic artifacts and hence evidence of the earliest human occupation proceed to this day. It is re-gretful that even authoritative Russian archaeologists, who have produced many serious and scholarly works on the Paleolithic, have begun to succumb to this temptation. In 2003, for example, Liubin and Beliaeva reported discover-ing the Lower Paleolithic on Kinjal Mountain in the Mineral Water area in the Northern Caucasus as follows:

“The top rocky part of Kinjal Mountain was completely demolished during extraction of building stone, and the bottom was reworked by quarries, falls and roads con-structed to allow heavy trucks to access the mountain. In the lowermost part of one of these roads … 12 lithics of Acheulean appearance, made from slate, were found in 2001–2002. The road is built on artificial ground consist-ing of levels of sand and slate debris” (Liubin and Beli-aeva 2004b: 107).

The collection was discussed at the Paleolithic Depart-ment at the Institute for the History of Material Culture in St. Petersburg. Stratigraphic, paleontological, and geo-logical substantiation of the age of these materials was not disputed because the materials were recovered in a surface context. There was some discussion, however, concerning whether or not the artifacts were humanly manufactured.

Another example is from 2003, when Shchelinskiy, Bosinski, and Kulakov reported their discovery on the Ta-manian Peninsula of a new Lower Paleolithic site, Bogat-iry, located at a known Tamanian fauna paleontological location, Sinyaya Balka (Bosinski et al. 2003). The authors propose probable association of finds of flaked stones with the fauna that is dated to the end of the Lower Pleistocene, about 1.2 to 0.8 mya (Wangengeim et al. 1991; Shchelinskiy

Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus • 109

and Kulakov 2005). During a study of this site, it was estab-lished that the Tamanian fauna bone bed is not preserved in its initial position. Rather, it either resulted from the de-position of an ancient mass flow stream (Wangengeim et al. 1991), or it was moved due to tectonic activity or landslip (Shchelinskiy and Kulakov 2005: 307). Hence, this bone bed may include materials from different time periods. Unfor-tunately, this does not exhaust the problems of the lithic collection from this location. The first finds from Bogatiry were shown in the Paleolithic Department at the Institute for the History of Material Culture in St. Petersburg. As with the finds from the location at Kinjal Mountain, the primary discussion about the Bogatiry lithics centered on whether they are indeed artifacts.

In Western and Central Europe, on the other hand, scholars are generally rather cautious and more often skep-tical about such lithic finds. For example, in 1993 in Tau-tavel (France), at the international colloquium, “The Earli-est Occupation of Europe”—the proceedings of which were issued under the same name two years later as a large vol-ume—a joint article by Roebroeks and Kolfschoten (1995), entitled “The earliest occupation of Europe: a reappraisal of artifactural and chronological evidence,” resonates to this issue. These authors concluded that, in Europe, it is er-roneous to say that there is not indisputable evidence of human occupation before 500kyr (ibid.: 307). In fact, such evidence is available, but one must bring a critical eye to its assessment. Roebroeks and Kolfschoten offer a new defini-tion—“incertofacts” or “possibiliths”—for those lithics that experts cannot diagnose confidently as human products. Unlike eoliths, “possibiliths” occur in geological strata from which, in other locations, finds of indisputable artifacts are known. The authors especially stress that “possibiliths” “cannot be used as solid basis for archaeological theories” (ibid.:304), although different scientists vary in their assess-ment of possibiliths.

The “possibiliths” problem is not new. It arose at the dawn of Paleolithic archaeology in the middle of 19th cen-tury and was actively debated for the next 50 years as a dis-cussion about eoliths and Tertiary man in Europe. In 1913, Obermaier published the fullest review of this topic in his well-known book, Prehistoric Man. No other so comprehen-sive review of the eolith problem has ever been done in the history of Paleolithic research. In the chapter, “The Man of the Tertiary period and a question about eoliths,” Ober-maier gave an exhaustive scientific diagnosis of eoliths and other artifact-like stones and formulated basic criteria al-lowing one to ascertain the validity of such finds. By the early years of the 20th century, three basic, complementary diagnostic methods that facilitated establishing whether randomly found flaked stones were artifacts, i.e., human-made products, or natural stones had been developed:

The first is a typological method, primary the analysis of the compatibility of stone knapping attributes on a flake (obermaier 1913: Figure 236; Debénath and Dibble 1994: Figure 2.3). These attributes are well known to Paleolithic archaeologists. However, obermaier (1913: 450‒451) em-phasized that these attributes in themselves “are not quite

faultless criteria of deliberate processing,” and “only critical analysis of a combination of the attributes is capable of en-abling us to reach a correct decision.” The triad of attributes necessary for diagnosing humanly-produced stone knap-ping includes: a) striking platform attributes (negatives or facets of preparation, and point of percussion), b) ventral surface attributes (bulb of percussion and ripples), and, c) dorsal surface attributes (negatives of previous flake scars). With respect to the Lower Paleolithic, typical for this period is a Clactonian flake with an oblique plain flaking platform, convex bulb of percussion, frequently well expressed semi-cone point of impact, and negatives of previous flakes often with deep pits of percussion on the dorsal surface—such flakes are produced by a hammer stone and have similar morphology irrespective of kinds of raw material. Even an individual flake, combining all these attributes (especially a Clactonian flake), can serve as “a litmus test,” which al-lows for a high probability that the piece was flaked by a hominin. However, only repeatability of a combination of these attributes on many flakes makes this probability al-most 100 percent. Certainly, in any archaeological assem-blage, the specified feature set is not necessarily found on every flake. Nevertheless, it is also true that in any archaeo-logical assemblage there are at least one and, rather more likely, several or many flakes on which all these attributes are present.

Among the seven possibiliths from Gerasimovka, there is only one flake (Praslov 1968: Figure 2.2). It has a wide bulb of percussion on the ventral face and three flake scars on the dorsal face, which mainly is covered with natural cortex. But its striking platform is “without preparation and represents a natural surface of a pebble” (ibid.: 20). In the collection from Bogatiry there are several flakes (Figure 1: 2–7; Bosinski et al. 2003: abb. 7) which have some of the flaking attributes—for example, flake scars on dorsal sur-faces and feebly marked ripples on ventral surfaces—but either the striking platforms are natural or the bulbs of per-cussion and points of percussion are absent and no typical Clactonian flake is present among them. Likewise, among the finds from Kinjal Mountain, shown by Liubin and Be-liaeva in 2005, the author noted only two flakes—one with a feebly marked bulb of percussion and two negatives on a dorsal face but a natural striking platform, and the second with a natural dorsal surface.

Thus, in all three collections, there is no flake with the complete diagnostic set (triad) of attributes of human flaking such as a typical Clactonian flake. It therefore is not possible to attribute repeatability of a combination of these attributes to even a minimal series of flakes. Hence, there is no obvious typological basis for assigning deliber-ate (human) activity to the production of the scars which are present on these stones. It is possible only to say that these stones have been subject to mechanical influence—impact or pressure. The absence of undeniable typological attri-butes of humanly produced flaking on these possibiliths al-lows one to conclude that the same mechanical influences likely explain the retouching or flake scars visible on the edges of these stones. Illustrations of these natural process-


es and their results can be found in Obermaier (1913: Figure 240, Table XXVI). To wit, the absence of a definite human signature in the production process means that there can-not be a precise lithic typology at these three sites (Bogat-iry, Gerasimovka, and Kinjal Mountain). Consequently, ty-pological definitions for the materials from these three sites are based frequently on an analog principle, meaning that they are described based on similarity to certain types but with the addition of the ending “-like.” For example, at Bo-gatiry, the bulk of the collection is composed of “chopper-like scrapers” or “scraper-like choppers” on marl pieces and fragments (Figure 1.8 ; Kulakov et al. 2005: 307).

The second method that can be used is the analysis of the geological contexts of the lithic finds. Previous expe-

rience in studying eolith locations in Europe has allowed determination of the typical conditions in which these arti-fact-like stones are formed, whether these are flints, marls, limestones, or other isotropic rocks.

“it is possible to predict definitively that eoliths have been found when these occur in the same context as flint in natural conditions and, at the same time, in contexts that, after deposition … underwent displacement” (Obermaier 1913: 467);“in particular both in more ancient, and in newer river deposits” (ibid.);“a source of eolith formation … is the sea surf ” (ibid.: 471);

1.

2.

3.

Figure 1. Bogatiry location: 1: core; 2–7: flakes; 8: tool. Sources of data: Bosinski et al. 2003: abb.7; Kulakov et al. 2005).


“eoliths are formed also by pressure of the earth” in loams in plateaus (ibid.);“are found in the area of glaciers, first of all among fragments of rubble of moraines” (ibid.: 472); and,“similar to eoliths, stones with trimmed-like ‘re-touched’ edges can be attributed … to boots of peasants, iron of ploughs … actions of wheels of vehicles and horseshoes” (ibid.), i.e., to modern, mainly technogenic, factors.

It is not difficult to see from this list that the sites of Gerasimovka, Bogatiry, and Kinjal Mountain correspond to typical location conditions for the formation of eoliths. This is either pebble alluvium (Gerasimovka), or displaced mass flow or sea-bank deposits (Bogatiry), or a recently functioning rock quarry (Kinjal Mountain).

The third method uses raw material analysis to examine the relationship between the location of flaked stones and the sources of raw material from which these finds were made. This method has the potential to be the most exact, even compared to typological analysis. This is because raw analysis allows identification of even those stones that have no attributes of flaking as manuports, if it is established that the sources for these stones are far enough away from where they are found, and that there are no taphonomic explanations for the presence of these stones in the locales where they are found. Raw material analysis was used successfully by Obermaier in identifying eolith locations: “eoliths represent objects selected from many thousands of flints, which form every possible morphology from pos-sible flakes to nothing to speak of fragments” (ibid.: 466).

This method (raw material analysis) also provides a negative answer to the question of whether the “possibil-iths” from the three sites are, in fact, real artifacts. This is because, at all three locations, collections of flaked stones were generated by the selection by researchers of fragments of the same rock that is present naturally in some abun-dance at these locales—flint pebbles at Gerasimovka, slate fragments at Kinjal Mountain, and fragments of silicified marl or limestone at Bogatiry. No pieces of nonlocal raw materials were found at any of these sites. Moreover, the excavations at both Kinjal and Bogatiry did not yield any other traces of human activity, such as fireplaces, burnt or cut-marked bones, remains of dwellings, etc.

Besides the three methods discussed above, there is one more way that can be used for assessment—a search for similar flaked stones in the same or similar geological contexts in other locales. In some cases, this method can provide important additional arguments, pro or contra. As more such find locales are documented, the less probable will be the attribution of these types of “possibiliths” to hu-man activity. In fact, ultimately, the eoliths problem was put to rest by European science when the numerous similar finds in different places in Western Europe—in deposits of various genesis and geological age—exceeded the quality of the finds. To begin with, their possible artifactual status was not supported because of a lack of other traces of hu-man occupation, such as fire-places, burnt or cut-marked

4.

5.

6.

bones, remains of dwellings, as well as no fossil remains of hominids. Second, these collections of flaked stones did not exhibit clear lithic typology, but, on the contrary, ev-erywhere were a more or less similar set of pieces in which stone fragments of highly variable forms, with sharp or sometimes roughly retouched edges, prevailed. In fact, for the flaked stones from Bogatiry, results of this fourth meth-od are already available. Recently it was reported (Kulakov et al. 2005) that marl-based assemblages close to Bogatiry are found in two other locales along the Azov Sea coast of the Tamanian Peninsula, but without any association with ancient fauna. Thus, archaeological surveys have found new assemblages like Bogatiry where natural outcrops of silicified marl pieces are available.

All told, it is necessary to add that the sensational na-ture of such “Lower Paleolithic” finds is usually rather fleeting. Nevertheless, their influence on the quality of the Paleolithic archaeology database and archaeological theo-ries created on its basis may have considerable longevity. Like surface finds of “Lower Paleolithic forms,” “possibil-ith“ locations create convenient ground for long, but unpro-ductive discussions about their geological age or scientific importance. A low level of typological criteria applied to the finds or not checking the geological age of the artifacts using modern diagnostic methods result in such materials being used to design sometimes absurd archaeological hy-potheses. Below are several examples.

One such instance is the discussion that was centered on the so-called “Kuruchai pebble culture” from �zykh Cave,�zykh Cave,zykh Cave, Azerbaijan. This archaeological hypothesis was formulated on the basis of the materials from the lower strata VII-X in this cave (Guseinov 1985), but was received skeptically by many Russian and foreign scholars (Liubin 1998a: 26). only recently, however, has it been specifically declared that these stones do not have the attributes associated with cul-tural manufacture (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 250). Some artifacts in this collection, apparently, were found in col-lapsed sediments under sections and are intrusions from the upper strata of this cave site (Doronichev 2004: 257).

Another example is the recent reiteration by Liubin (1998a) that the artifacts from Ignatenkov Kutok are proof of hominid occupation and existence of Acheulian industries in the Northern Caucasus in the Early Pleistocene. This fact “is proved” by two handaxes recovered from the Psekups River bed and a handaxe in the top pebble level that also has fossil fauna (Liubin 1998a: 165). Liubin does, however, accept the fact that the two handaxes are from nonstratified context and that the other handaxe has been redposited in a pebble level containing fauna of Psekups Complex. This faunal complex is dated from 2.5 to 1.97Ma (Wangengeim et al. 1990), a range of time that far exceeds the age of the oldest indisputable Paleolithic finds in Europe and Asia.

In the case of the Bogatiry finds, Shchelinsky and Kula-kov (2005) originally proposed the possibility of a “Tama-nian variant” of the Lower Acheulian, but, more recently, Shchelinsky (2007: 7) has described the assemblage as “a quite typical Oldowan industry.” Another “original Acheu-lian variant” is claimed for the finds at Kinjal Mountain


(Liubin and Beliaeva 2006: 44). In both cases, the distinc-tive nature of the lithic assemblages is supported only by the types of various raw materials; no true handaxes were found to support their Acheulian attribution. Moreover, some scholars hypothesize that the lithic assemblages from Bogatiry and Kinjal Mountain are significant for under-standing typological variability of the Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe, because this variability is caused by the use of unusual raw materials. Additionally, the finds at Kinjal Mountain are said to document the fact that hominid occu-pation of Eastern Europe occurred mainly along the Great African Rift, which has its northern termination in the vol-canic mountains in the Central Northern Caucasus. Thus, a penetration of the “creators of the most ancient Acheulian industries in the adjacent central part of Northern Cauca-sus” occurred through the passes of the Central Caucasus (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 105).

Contrary to these views, the author believes that before engaging in discussion about the variability of lithic indus-tries and hypotheses about the age and routes of human migrations in the Lower Paleolithic, one has to critically and impartially evaluate the finds. Namely, one needs to argue and prove that the lithic collections are represented not by naturally broken stones, but by assemblages of stone artifacts. As discussed above, all four objective methods (typology, geological context, raw material analysis, and identification of additional locales with similar stones but no record of archaeology) for assessing the “possibiliths” from the three sites (Bogatiry, Gerasimovka, and Kinjal Mountain) have yielded negative answers regarding these finds as human products.

THE PrE-MouSTErIAN or �A�A�IAN�A�A�IANAyACIAN�oMPlEx IN EASTErN EuroPE

(600,000–200,000yA)Evidence of the oldest human occupation satisfying the requirements of scientific reliability discussed above cur-rently is known only in the southern and western mountain regions of Eastern Europe. These are Korolevo I in the West-ern Carpathian Mountains and Treugol’naya Cave in the Northern Caucasus. Detailed studies carried out on these sites are published with sufficient completeness (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990; Doronichev et al. 2004, 2007). other sites (Pogreby, Dubossary, Chryashchy, and Mikhailovskoe) have yielded mostly surface finds with just a few artifacts in Middle Pleistocene strata. In the Northern Caucasus, ma-terials from the lower strata at Weasel Cave also are identi-fied as Lower Paleolithic, but they are not numerous and only preliminarily published (Hidjrati et al. 2003). Among these sites, only the multidisciplinary investigated strati-fied materials from Treugol’naya Cave allow assessment of the earliest stages of the Paleolithic actually in the territory of Eastern Europe.

TREUgOL’NAyA CAvETreugol’naya Cave is located in the Northern Caucasus. The author undertook excavations of the cave from 1986

to 2000. There are 11 Middle Pleistocene strata, seven of which contain stone artifacts. On the basis of several lines of evidence—study of the geomorphological position and stratigraphy of the site (Nesmeyanov 1999); paleomag-netic, magnetic, and palynological analyses of sediments (Pospelova et al. 1996; Doronichev et al 2004, 2007); the study of a rich fauna including more than 20 mammal species (Baryshnikov 1993) and more than 20 bird species (Potapova and Baryshnikov 1993; Baryshnikov and Pota-pova 1995); zooarchaeological research of animal bones (Hoffecker et al. 2003); and, more than 40 absolute dates using the ESR method on mollusk shells (Molodkov 2001) and mammal teeth (Blackwell et al. 2005; Doronichev et al. 2004)—the Lower Paleolithic industries at Treugol’naya Cave are dated to the first half of Middle Pleistocene, or from oxygen Isotope Stage (oIS) 15 to 11 (Table 1). This corresponds to a time interval from 600,000 to 350,000 years ago. From stratigraphic positions of the lithics, four Lower Paleolithic cultural-chronological assemblages were iden-tified in Treugol’naya Cave (Doronichev 2000, 2001, 2004; Doronichev et al. 2004, 2007).

The oldest, Assemblage IV, contains 18 artifacts (Do-ronichev et al, 2004: Figure 11–14). They are made from flint, and also quartz, limestone, and other rocks, the majority of which are not found near the cave. Among the 10 tools are side-scrapers, end-scrapers, a denticulate, and composite tools (Figure 2: 1–5). Despite the small number of artifacts, these lithics are currently the only authentic evidence of human occupation in the southern part of Eastern Europe by about 600kyr (see Table 1). This period corresponds to the warm oIS 15, which appears to be correlated with the Cromer III interstadial in Western Europe (Roebroeks and Kolfschoten 1995: Figure 2) or the Muchkapsk (Be-lovejsk) interglacial in Eastern Europe (Bolikhovskaya and Molodkov 2002: Table 1). According to pollen data, most of Eastern Europe was characterized by mixed coniferous and broad-leaf forests with Neogene exotics dominant in the optimum of this interglacial. In the Northern Caucasus, broad-leaf forests with a prevalence of hornbeam, beech, wing-nut, walnut, chestnut, and other warm and mois-ture-loving species existed at that time (ibid.: 12). This in-terglaciation followed one of the most extensive (probably) glacial periods during entire Pleistocene—the Don Glacia-tion of the Russian Plain. Ice sheets during this glaciation spread much further to the south in the Don River Basin than recorded for any subsequent glaciation (Roebroeks and Kolfschoten 1995:298). During the Don Glaciation (oIS 16), conditions of cold periglacial forest-steppes, steppes, and coniferous or birch dominated light forests prevailed even in the southern areas of Eastern Europe (Bolikhovs-kaya and Molodkov 2002: 11).

All later assemblages (III, II, and I) at Treugol’naya Cave are dated to one chronological period (oIS 11), a pe-riod that ranges from 430/455 to 360/365kyr. This stage oIS 11 corresponds to the Likhvin Interglaciation in Eastern Eu-rope (ibid.: Table 1). It was the warmest interglacial period during entire Middle Pleistocene in Europe as a whole. The climatic optimum during the Likhvin Interglaciation was


TABLE1.CHRONOLOGYOFTHETREUGOLNAYACAVEDEPOSITSBASEDONESRDATES,ANDSTRATIGRAPHIC,MAGNETIC,FLORAL,

ANDFAUNALDATA.

Layer

Archaeological

Flora

Fauna

Climate

MeanESR

Magnetic

Correlationwith

Agesfor

Industry

Dates(ka)

Subzones

OISCurve1

OISStage2

Deep erosion

4A

Woo

ded

Sing

ilian

mod

erate, dry

I

Stage 10 ?

334–364

"Pre-M

ousterian"

step

pe

Faun

al Com

plex:

4B

flake-too

l ind

ustry

Subalpine

Canismosbachensis,Vulpesvulpes,

cool, d

ry

364 ± 11; ena

mel

(LU)

IIa

Stage 11

364–427

meado

ws

Ursus(Spelaearctos)deningeri,

prob

ably Stage

11.1a

Deep erosion - lenses R & β

Stephanorhinushundsheimensis,

Lo

w altitude

Capreoluscf.C.sussenbornensis,

warm, h

umid

prob

ably

"Pre-M

ousterian"

decidu

ous woo

ds

Cervuselaphus(cf.acoronatus),

376 ± 9; ena

mel (L

U)

Stage 11.1b

4C

flake-too

l ind

ustry

Subalpine

Bisonexgr.priscusschoetensacki,

cold, d

ry

IIb (or IIc)

meado

ws

Capraexgr.Caucasica

(stadial extremum

)

4D

Core-chop

per

indu

stry

prob

ably

5A

"Pre-M

ousterian"

Subalpine

cold, d

ry

418 ± 10; ena

mel

(LU)

IIc

Stage 11.2

flake-too

l ind

ustry

meado

ws

(stadial extremum

)

cool, h

umid

IIIa

5B

Woo

ded

very w

arm, h

umid

393 ± 27; m

olluscs

IIIb

prob

ably

step

pe

(in

terglacial

optim

um)

406 ± 15; ena

mel

(LU)

Stage 11.3

5C

"Pre-M

ousterian"

Subalpine

cold, d

ry

IIIc

flake-too

l ind

ustry

meado

ws

(stadial extremum

)

Stage 12 ?

427–474

cool, h

umid

IIId

Erosion

6

Dry sub

trop

ical

warm, d

ry

504 ± 24; ena

mel

(LU)

Stage 13

474–528

woo

ds

(sub

trop

ical)

Erosion

7A

"Pre-M

ousterian"

High altitud

e woo

ds

&

cool, h

umid

583 ± 25; m

olluscs

IVa

Stage 15

568– 621

fla

ke-too

l ind

ustry

sub

alpine m

eado

ws

7B

Woo

ded step

pe

warm, d

ry

IVb

IVc

Stage 16 ?

621–659

Deep erosion

8

1 Based on all d

ata an

d compa

rison with OIS curves for M

D900963.

2 Age com

parisons from Aitk

en and Stokes (1997: Table 1.2).


characterized by a wide expansion of warm and moisture-loving tree species in the central areas of Eastern Europe and the formation of extensive forests in the southeast for-est-steppe palezones (ibid.: 13).

Assemblage III in Treugol’naya Cave contains 27 arti-facts, including eight tools (Doronichev et al. 2004: Figures 15‒18). Like Assemblage IV, the lithics are made of vari-ous rocks that are not local in origin. Most lithics are from

Figure 2. Treugol’naya Cave. Assemblage IV: 1, 2, 4: composite tools; 3: unretouched flake; 5: transverse side-scraper. Assemblage III: 6: massive end-scraper; 7: composite tool; 8: unretouched flake; 9: flat limace; 10: endscraper; 11: double end-scraper.


alevrolite. Along with small flake tools (see Figure 2: 6–11), among which end-scrapers and composite tools domi-nate, there also are pebble macro-tools (a chopper and a proto-biface on a flat limestone pebble) (Doronichev et al. 2004: Figure 16,17). As a whole, Assemblages IV and III at Treugol’naya Cave document that, in the interval from 600 to 400kyr, the Lower Paleolithic in southern Eastern Eu-rope is represented by an industry of small flake tools and pebble macro-tools, without Acheulian bifaces. On this ba-sis, these finds were assigned to the Tayacian (Doronichev 2001; 2004a). It is necessary to note that there was obvious selectivity of archaeological material by the groups respon-sible—in both assemblages, cores are absent and in Assem-blage IV, there are no macro-tools. Selectivity is also char-acteristic of the upper Assemblages II and I at Treugol’naya Cave. Generally, as the publications show, such selectivity appears to be an integral feature of the Lower Paleolithic industries; that is, it is characteristic to find a combination of two common typological groups—small tools made on flakes or angular fragments and large tools made on peb-bles or rock fragments.

Assemblage II has 70 lithics including 37 tools (Do-ronichev et al. 2004: Figures 19‒37). It has been identified as a chopper industry (Doronichev 2001) because choppers made on limestone pebbles and slabs comprise about 65% of all tools (Figures 3 and 4). More than 70% of these are side- or end-, convex unifacial choppers. The other pebble macro-tools include three double choppers, four chopping-tools, two pebble side-scrapers, two massive pick-like uni-faces, four small short proto-bifaces, a tool of rabot type, and an atypical or core-like biface. Flake tools are few—a side-scraper, an end-scraper, and four retouched flakes. Numerous small cortical or semi-cortical flakes and split pebble fragments, as well as few pebble cores, including two single-platform, two triple-platform, two polyhedrons, a double-platform, and a subspheroid core characterize the debitage. Despite obvious typological differences between Assemblage II and the other assemblages in Treugol’naya Cave, it is possible to assume a selective character in this industry. Hence, one can interpret it as only one part of ty-pologically more complex and variable industrial complex in the Lower Paleolithic. This new interpretation is based on the following data: а) a recent series of ESR dates for the top Middle Pleistocene layers in Treugol’naya Cave document the chronological placement of Assemblages III, II and I within the framework of oIS 11, i.e., in a rather narrow time interval about 100kyr; b) several pebble imple-ments are found in assemblages III and I; and, c) pebble macro-tools are the integral component, along with small flake tools, in the Lower Paleolithic.

The uppermost Lower Paleolithic assemblage (I) at Treugol’naya Cave consists of 280 stone artifacts (Figures 5 and 6; ibid.: Figures 38‒46). An industry of small non-Levallois flake tools, made from nonlocal flint, is present in the assemblage. Few pebbles with scars are found. A dis-tinctive feature of the assemblage is the prevalence of side-scrapers, which comprise about 50% of all tools; these are mostly simple types. There are individual double, abrupt,

convergent, and thinned back side-scrapers. End-scrapers comprise the second most frequent tool category. There are two Quinson points. Denticulates, notches, combined tools, and awls are rare. Levallois or Mousterian points, as well as Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technique, are completely absent. Assemblage I has been identified (Doronichev 2001; Doronichev et al. 2004) as Proto-Charentian, due to its com-mon similarity in debitage and flake tools with the Lower Paleolithic industries from the caves of Kudaro I and Azykh in the Southern Caucasus. Earlier, Liubin (1984) defined these as the “Acheulean of Proto-Charentian type.” Now the time has come to reconsider this industrial definition for Assemblage I for the following reasons:

Recently Liubin no longer notes a Proto-Charen-tian aspect for the Lower Paleolithic industries in the Southern Caucasus, but instead defines them as “Acheulean industries with bifaces” (Liubin, 1998а: 17; Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а). The term “Proto-Charentian” also is not used to define the Lower Paleolithic assemblages in either Western Asia or Central Europe. Moreover, this term is no longer used in France where de Lumley (de Lumley-Woodyear 1971: 308) had introduced it to designate complexes with rare bifaces from Arago Cave. More recently, the Lower Paleolithic assemblages from Arago Cave, the most ancient of which are dated to about 600kyr and contain rare typical Acheulian bifaces and cleavers, have been redefined as the Mediterranean Acheulian (de Lumley and Barsky 2004).A series of absolute dates for Assemblage I (Do-ronichev et al. 2004) indicates its strong chrono-logical association with Assemblage II (the chop-per industry) and Assemblage III, which was earlier determined to be Tayacian.The original uniqueness of the industries repre-sented by the numerically largest assemblages—I and II, representing a flake tool industry and a chopper industry, respectively—is now not so obvious. Comparison with the Lower Paleolithic in Central Europe (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990), the Southern Caucasus (Liubin 1998а) and Western Asia (Bar-Yosef 1998) shows that the combination of both tool groups is characteristic of lithic as-semblages that contain numerous artifacts.

Based on these reasons, the author believes that the most justified position is now to consider all the assem-blages at Treugol’naya Cave within the framework of a uniform industrial tradition, which can be defined as the Pre-Mousterian Complex or Tayacian in a broad sense. It is necessary to note that this conclusion is an archaeological hypothesis, which is based not only on the analysis of the lithic industries at Treugol’naya Cave, but also a synthesis of the data from other Lower Paleolithic sites in Eastern Eu-rope. Unfortunately, the archaeological assemblages from Treugol’naya contain only small quantities of artifacts. In identifying the artifacts, the author was guided by rigid typological criteria that are, as it is stressed above, either

1.

2.

3.


the quality of the lithics themselves (the flaking attribute triad) and the typological standardization of their forms, or the nonlocal raw materials on which the lithics are made. Certainly, with somewhat less rigorous standards, the number of lithic finds at the site could be increased because there are numerous fragments of local limestone which fre-quently have edges with rough, irregular retouch or flak-

ing. Nevertheless, as noted earlier and in Doronichev (2001: 10), such “possibiliths” were removed from consideration when their number sharply increased in the excavation of the cave entrance area outside the modern drip line. It be-came clear that these artifact-like pieces of limestone origi-nate from slope sediments above the cave, and are not, in fact, artifacts.

Figure 3. Treugol’naya Cave. Assemblage II: 1, 3: choppers; 2: three-platform core; 4: proto-biface.


DEfINITIoN of THE PrE-MouSTErIAN(TA�A�IAN) �oMPlExIn mid-1960s, Bordes (1968: 140) suggested replacing Breuil’s early 1930s term “Tayacian” with the term “Pre-Mousterian.” The term “Tayacian,” however, still is often used for designating assemblages that are synchronic with the Acheulian, but that do not contain typical (i.e., sym-

metric and well-made) Acheulian handaxes in the Lower Paleolithic industries in Europe and Western Asia. Other terms have been applied within restricted regions (Clacto-nian, Bohemian, Taubachian, Buda-industry, etc.); the use of descriptive labels (nonbiface assemblages, small tool as-semblages, flake tool assemblages, core-chopper industries, etc.) also has occurred. Eponymic and descriptive terms

Figure 4. Treugol’naya Cave. Assemblage II: 1, 2, 4: proto-bifaces; 3: atypical biface.


Figure 5. Treugol’naya Cave. Assemblage I: 1: end-scraper; 2–4, 10: simple side-scrapers; 5: denticulate tool; 6: exhausted core; 7, 8: transverse side-scrapers; 9: retouched flake.


Figure 6. Treugol’naya Cave. Assemblage I: 1, 3: Quinson points; 2: reverse convergent side-scraper; 4: composite tool combining a simple side-scraper with a nosed end-scraper; 5: Quina side-scraper with a back thinned with flat ventral retouch; 6: denticulate tool; 7, 8: transverse side-scrapers; 9, 12, 13: end-scrapers; 10, 11: simple side-scrapers.


both are valid and whether researchers choose to use one or another is somewhat subjective.

In France, where Lower Paleolithic nonbiface assem-blages first were identified:

“the term Tayacian (or proto-Mousterian) has been used to cover a variety of assemblages that are clearly contem-poraneous with Acheulean ones but that lack bifaces and are dominated instead by flake tools, often retouched to form sidescrapers. In addition, these assemblages often contain flaked pebbles (choppers)…limaces, denticu-lates, notches, and Tayac (or Tayacian) points…” (Klein 1989: 254‒255).

It also is pertinent to remember that Bordes, following Breuil, considered the Clactonian to be earlier than the Tayacian industrial complex without Acheulian bifaces. Bordes (1968: 95) defined the Clactonian as an industry without handaxes, containing various choppers and chop-ping-tools, flakes (a “Clactonian flake” is only one of types; some flakes have almost a Levallois shape, although their platforms are usually plain), and flake tools. Flake tools include various, sometimes well retouched, side-scrapers, end-scrapers, denticulates and notched tools, etc.

All told, the definitions of the “Tayacian” or “Pre-Mous-terian” are quite similar. This can be seen in the following example, where these assemblages have been repeatedly renamed, depending on the researcher involved. At La Mi-coque, Breuil (1932) identified Layer 3 as Clactonian, and the overlying Layer 4 as Tayacian. Subsequently, Bordes (1956) classified them, respectively, as primitive Mousterian and Mousterian. Finally, both layers were again renamed as Pre-Mousterian (Laville et al. 1980). All these different names thus are generally attributable as the Pre-Mousterian (Tayacian) techno-complex of Lower Paleolithic industries, which existed synchronously with the Acheulian techno-complex, but differed from it in the absence of Acheulian handaxes, and Levallois technologies. Other basic charac-teristics of the Pre-Mousterian Complex are: a) a combina-tion of macro-tools such as choppers, which are made on pebbles or boulders, with small tools made on non-Leval-lois flakes; and, b) a prevalence of side-scrapers among the flake-tools, and usually significant numbers of end-scrap-ers, denticulates, and notched tools.

It is necessary to note that the main diagnostic feature of this complex of industries is the absence of Acheulian bifaces (or handaxes), i.e., symmetrical, continuous or partially bifacially trimmed, bifacial tools of standardized morphology, or so-called classical types (for definitions see Debénath and Dibble [1994: 132–149]). on the other hand, bifaces falling into the category of “miscellaneous” (includ-ing small, square, biface-awls and so on) occur in the Lower Paleolithic not only in the Acheulian, but also in the Taya-cian assemblages (Bordes 1961: 68; Debénath and Dibble 1994: 169). This is true also of other types of bifaces, such as “Abbevillian,” core-like, proto-bifaces, etc. Other categories of bifaces (backed biface-knifes of Central European types) characterize the Middle Paleolithic—Micoquian in Central and Eastern Europe—as distinct from the Acheulian indus-

trial complex. Likewise, bifacial foliate points or leaf points are present at the end of Lower to the beginning of the Mid-dle Paleolithic in Central and Eastern Europe and are rare in Western Europe (Debénath and Dibble 1994: 119).

Accepting the terms “Pre-Mousterian” and “Tayacian” as synonymous, the author argues that, like the Acheulian, these terms do not have a strict cultural designation. They are applied only as common identifiers of techno-complex rank that is synchronous with the Acheulian techno-com-plex in the Lower Paleolithic, and for which symmetrical, flat or massive Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technique (excepting sometimes a few Levallois flakes) are absent. Use of the term “Pre-Acheulian,” that sometimes is used to designate archaic, mostly pebble, industries that pre-ceded the Acheulian techno-complex in different regions of Western Europe, to the context of Eastern Europe seems less appropriate. Here it is necessary to take into account the absence of a long-term Acheulian tradition in Eastern Europe (contrary to Western Europe or Western Asia), and a precedence for Eastern Europe of the term “Pre-Mouste-rian,” as offered by obermaier (1925) in the 1920s.

In addition to Treugol’naya Cave, industries of the Pre-Mousterian (Tayacian) Complex have been identified at all other Lower Paleolithic sites in Eastern Europe—Khryas-hchy and Mikhailovskoe in Lower Don River Valley and Pogreby and Dubossary in Moldova (Table 2). However, both the age and industrial uniformity of these archaeo-logical collections are problematic, as they mainly consist of surface finds. Nevertheless, one attraction of the mate-rials from these sites is that they help overcome the nu-merical deficiency in the archaeological assemblages from Treugol’naya Cave—the comparatively small quantities to use for reliable industrial attributions. At the same time, it is necessary to note that only future discoveries of strati-fied Lower Paleolithic occupations with many thousands of lithics from these industries will finally document the appearance of the earliest human populations in Eastern Europe.

POgREBy AND DUBOSSARy LOCATIONSAt the Pogreby and Dubossary locations, which are situat-ed several kilometers from each other in the Lower Dnestr River Valley, stone artifacts have been collected on eroded surfaces of loesses and in buried soil on high terraces along the Dnestr River. The age of these collections is not deter-mined precisely. Earlier Anisiutkin (1987: 13) assumed a Rissian age for the Pogreby industry, but later re-dated it to the Mindel and Mindel-Riss (Anisiutkin 1992: 36). The artifacts were found on the surface or in deposits that have been correlated with the Dnepr loess and Zavadovsk soil, after Veklich’s scheme (ibid.). Both these are now corre-lated, respectively, to oIS 8 and oIS 9–11 (Bolikhovskaya and Molodkov 2002: Table 1). The soil correlation to oIS 11 is supported only by pollen of arboreal exotics (Pterocarya, Zelkova) and a reworked elephant tooth (Archidickodon tro-gontherii) typical of the Tiraspolian fauna (Pospelova and Levkovskaya 1994: 224). Thus, while the age determination


TABLE2.PROPOSEDCHRONOLOGYOFTHELOWER

PALEOLITHICSTRATIFIED

ASSEM

BLAGESINEASTERNEUROPE(AGEOFOIS

STAGESAFTER

AITKEN

ANDSTOKES1997).

European

Oxygen

Ages

Glacial&

Isotope

for

LowerPaleolithicAssemblagesinEasternEurope

Interglacial

Stages

OIS

Complexes

(OIS)

(ka)

6

130–190

UpperAcheulianorEarlyMiddlePaleolithicLeafPointIndustries

Saalian

7 190–244

Khryashchy, later a

ssem

blage

?

Mikha

ilovsko

e ?

PreMousterian

8 244–301

Pogreby ? Dub

ossary ?

Khryashchy, early assem

blage

?

9

301–334

Holsteinian

10

334–364

Treu

gol'n

aya, Layer 4a ?

Korolevo, Layer VI ?

Treu

gol'n

aya, Layers 4

a-c

Assem

blage I

PreMousterian

11

364–427

Treu

gol'n

aya, Layer 4d

Assem

blage II

CorechopperIndustry

Treu

gol'n

aya, Layers 5

a, 5b

Assem

blage III

PreMousterian

Elsterian

12

427–474

Treu

gol'n

aya, Layer 5c ?

13

474–528

Cromerian

14

528–568

15

568–621

Treu

gol'n

aya, Layer 7a

Assem

blage IV

PreMousterian


between oIS 11 and oIS 8 for the materials from Pogreby and Dubossary seems quite probable, the reliability of this dating remains problematic.

At Pogreby there are 259 lithics and at Dubossary there are 415 lithics. About 95% of the finds from both sites oc-cur on the surface, and among them many naturally broken stones have been noted (Hoffecker 2002: 47). Moreover, at Pogreby, an admixture with Upper Paleolithic artifacts was recognized (Anisiutkin 1987). From the techno-typologi-cal point of view, Anisiutkin considered both collections to be similar and attributed them to a “Dubossary industry.” At Pogreby, Anisiutkin defined 28 cores, a series of pebble macro-tools, including choppers, three rough backed bi-faces (?), small and massive Clactonian flakes, and 41 flake tools (side-scrapers, notches, denticulates and beak-like tools, atypical burins, awls, a proto-limace, and a Taya-cian point). The Dubossary collection includes 77 cores, 12 lithics made on pebbles and 99 tools made on flakes and fragments. Analogies for the “Dubossary industry” are said to be with Pre-Mousterian assemblages in Western and Central Europe, for which the common feature “is not only the absence of typical hand axes, but also a constant combination of large pebble tools with small flake tools” (Anisiutkin 1992: 34). In addition, he noted a similarity of these materials to “Tayacoid industries” in Central Europe (Anisiutkin 1987: 13‒14).

KHr�ASH�H� AND MIKHAIlovSKoELOCATIONSAt the Khryashchy and Mikhailovskoe locations, which are 2 km from each other in the Severskiy Donets River Valley, three Lower Paleolithic assemblages were identified—the most ancient alluvial assemblage (60 pieces) is at Khryas-hchy; a middle assemblage from the lower soil (220 pieces) is found at Mikhailovskoe; and, the top assemblage from the middle soil (20 pieces) is at Khryashchy (Praslov 2001). Based on stratigraphic position and a cold pollen spectrum identified for the alluvial assemblage at Khryashchy, this location has been dated to the time of the Dnepr Glaciation. The lower and middle buried soils at both sites were attrib-uted to the odintsovo Interglaciation (Praslov 1968, 1984, 1995). It is not clear why the alluvial assemblage at Khryas-hchy recently was re-dated to the Don Glaciation, while the buried soils were reassigned to the Likhvin Interglaciation (Praslov 2001: 21). The reasons for this new chronology are not clear, as no new supporting data have been presented. In the alluvium at Khryashchy, as in the buried soils, no diagnostic species of Tiraspolian fauna have been found. To the contrary, correlation of the alluvial assemblage at Khryashchy with oIS 8 (244–301kyr) is demonstrated by a trans-Don climate-stratigraphic correlation (Zubakov et al. 1985). The archaeological assemblages from the buried soils at Khryashchy and Mikhailovskoe thus can be dated no earlier than oIS 7.

Although Khryashchy and Mikhailovskoe are consid-ered to be the only stratified Lower Paleolithic sites in the Russian Plain (Praslov 2001), like Pogreby and Dubossary,

the overwhelming majority of the finds here are not associ-ated with a stratified context. only five lithics were found during cleaning of the surface of the alluvial pebble level that was exposed in the riverbank at Khryashchy (Praslov 1968: 24, Figure 4). Hoffecker (2002: 48) noted that the lithics are strongly abraded, and many naturally fractured stones occur in the alluvial assemblage at Khryashchy. Only one flake was found during section cleaning in the top of the middle buried soil at Khryashchy and seven lithics in the lower soil at Mikhailovskoe (Praslov 1968: 24, 34, 44, Fig-ure 13). Khryashchy and Mikhailovskoe contain flake tool industries with some pebble macro-tools (Figures 7 and 8), but without Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technique. Thus, these materials correspond to the definition of the Tayacian complex, a technological similarity which Praslov (ibid.: 55) noted for Mikhailovskoe. Also, Anisiutkin (1987: 13) assumed that Khryashchy “belongs to the group of in-dustries with choppers, Clactonian flakes, but without real Acheulean bifaces and Levallois technique.”

LOwER PALEOLITHIC LOCATIONS IN THE NORTHERN CAUCASUSIn the Northern Caucasus, except for Treugol’naya Cave, Middle Pleistocene strata have been investigated at Weasel Cave (Mishtulagti Lagat) in Northern ossetia. The Lower Paleolithic materials found here are published only pre-liminary (Hidjrati et al. 2003). In this cave, located at an elevation of 1125masl, at the bottom of a 26m section is a lower bed of sediments (Layers 22–36), which are dated, based on pollen and fauna, presumably to the interval from 250–400kyr. For Layer 24, an argon date greater than 500kyr was obtained, but the excavator is not certain that the date is accurate (Hidjrati, pers. comm., 2005). In these layers, only a few artifacts were found—a chopper and flake tools in Layer 29 and a core in Layer 32. A small num-ber of artifacts presumably dating to the end of the Middle Pleistocene (130–250kyr) were found in the lower levels (15, 17, and 19–21) of the middle bed in the cave. An archaeo-logically sterile layer (18) is a volcanic ash horizon; it has an argon date greater than 200kyr. Despite the small number of artifacts in Levels 15–21, a similarity of these lithics to a laminar Middle Paleolithic industry with a greater quantity of artifacts from the overlying Levels 12–14 was identified. Layers 12–14 are dated to the beginning of the Upper Pleis-tocene (70–128kyr) based on faunal and pollen data.

A recent Lower Paleolithic discovery has been the site of Darvagchai I near Derbent in Dagestan (Amirkhanov and Derevianko 2004; Derevianko 2006). Lithic finds are mostly small (less than 5cm) flint pieces originating from two levels within marine sediments of a sea terrace of the Caspian Sea. The lithics are embedded in conglomerates composed of marine shell-bearing sands, cobbles, and peb-bles. The age of these finds was identified as the early Mid-dle Pleistocene (800–600kyr) on the basis of marine faunal remains of the Baku transgression of the Caspian Sea. The assemblage numbers 261 lithics from two excavation areas of 12m2 and 4m2 and seems to include a number of typo-


Figure 7. Khryashchy location, alluvium assemblage: 1: Quina side-scraper; 2: simple side-scraper; 3: transverse side-scraper; 4: chop-ping-tool; 5: angled side-scraper; 6: one-platform core. Modified after Praslov (1968).


logically defined pieces such as cores, retouched flakes, end-scrapers, and side-scrapers (Derevianko 2006: Figure 13–15; Derevianko et al. 2006: Figures 1‒8). All lithics iden-tified as artifacts are more or less heavily abraded (Figure 9), and reworked morphologies for many of them suggest that they may not be human products; moreover, no typical Clactonian flakes are present. obviously, future research at this site has to clarify the status of this lithic assemblage.

THE LOwER PALEOLITHIC AT KOROLEvO I Korolevo I is located in the Western Carpathian Mountains. It is situated in the eastern part of Central Europe, but in immediate proximity to the borders of Eastern Europe. Korolevo I was discovered by Gladilin in 1974, and then excavated and meticulously investigated during 16 field seasons. The site is on a high terrace of the Tissa River, on the slope of volcanic ridge which is rich in andesite lava

Figure 8. Mikhailovskoe location: 1: end-scraper; 2: angled side-scraper; 3: simple side-scraper with steep retouch; 4: many-platform unifacial core; 5: fragmented Quinson point (?); 6: convergent side-scraper; 7: simple side-scraper with a base thinned with flat ventral retouch; 8: simple side-scraper. Modified after Praslov (1968).


outcrops. Here the Pleistocene sediments have a depth up to 12m and are well stratified due to a series of buried soils. Although fossil fauna was not preserved at the site, geological, soil, paleomagnetic, and palynological research was carried out, and absolute dates were obtained (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990). The study of the archaeological collec-tions is on-going, with new analyses yielding significant corrections to the initial characteristics of the assemblages (Kulakovskaya 1999, 2003).

Gladilin and his colleagues excavated seven stratified Lower Paleolithic assemblages at Korolevo I—from top to bottom: V, Va, Vb, Vc, VI, VII, and VIII. However, assem-blage composition is methodically incorrect, because each assemblage combines the less numerous finds from strati-fied excavation context with the more numerous artifacts found on the modern surface 300 and more meters away from the excavation units. For example, the earliest assem-blages (VIII and VII) include lithics found in the excavation unit at Gostry Verkh Mountain and similar lithics—based on the degree of weathering on the andesite artifacts—that were selected by researchers from mixed surface materials at Beyvar Mountain (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990: 37, 39, 47). This methodical mistake has resulted in a cautious and of-ten skeptical reaction by other researchers to the Lower Pa-leolithic industries at this site. More recently, a re-analysis of the assemblages has vastly improved our understand-ing of these assemblages. Only the lithics found in situ are included, while the materials from the surface collections were set aside. As a result, the archaeological stratigraphy of the site has essentially changed. only Assemblages VI and VII (including the former Assemblage VIII) now are assigned to the Lower Paleolithic (Haesaerts and Koula-kovska 2006).

The earliest Assemblage VII (VIII) was found in situ only in Excavation Unit XIII at Gostry Verkh, and origi-nates from the paleo-Tissa River alluvial sediments. These lithics are deposited below the Matuyama-Bruhnes bound-ary and are tentatively dated to about 950kyr. The assem-blage now includes only several large flakes (ibid.). Based on published figures of two of these heavily weathered an-desite pieces (Kulakovskaya 2003: Figure 1), it is difficult to evaluate the quality of these artifacts with confidence. One can note only that they are not typologically indis-putable artifacts. This conclusion is supported by the fol-lowing example. Gladilin and Sitliviy (1990: 37) mention some artifacts of quartz and quartzite in Assemblage VIII and illustrate a pebble chopper that is made of nonandesite (quartzite?) raw material (ibid.: Table III-1). Unlike andesite lithics, surface finds of this nonvolcanic raw material could not be introduced into the assemblage on the basis of their degree of weathering, as this so-called hydration method was tested only on andesite. Hence, the nonandesite lithics probably were found in the excavation. Because these are not mentioned in later publications, it is possible that new researchers do not consider them to be artifacts. Thus, it is not possible to identify the archaeological nature of Assem-blage VII (VIII) at Korolevo I with any confidence. This is especially true because one needs to take into account the conditions of these finds—within alluvial deposits contain-ing large and small pebbles, the local presence of andesite, and generally bad preservation of the lithics. Therefore, from the author’s point of view, it is methodically correct to consider these finds only as “possibiliths”.

Upper Assemblage VI was found in situ in Excavation Unit IX at Beyvar (this hill has been completely destroyed by a modern quarry), in the top horizon of buried soil VII.

Figure 9. Flint lithics from Darvagchai I. After Derevianko (2006: Figure 13).


The assemblage was originally dated to the Mindel-Riss, but since then it has been re-dated to the inter-Mindel (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990: 41). Currently, the assemblage is dated to oIS 14 or circa 550kyr (Kulakovskaya 2003; Haesaerts and Koulakovska 2006), but this age can be challenged. In a generalized section of Korolevo I (Haesaerts and Koula-kovska 2006: Figure 2), Paleosoil VII corresponds to Strata 17 and 18; it is Stratum 17 that contains Assemblage VI. Pa-leomagnetic excurse Biwa III is present in the overlaying Stratum 16 and has a TL date of 360±50kyr. According to more recent data (Pospelova 2000: Figure 7), excurse Biwa III is dated to 370kyr, and so it must be correlated with the end of warm oIS 11 (364–427kyr). Pollen data (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990; Haesaerts and Koulakovska 2006) also help to chronologically position Assemblage VI. A cold oscillation (so-called “cryomer IX” with periglacial birch forest-steppe and later, habitats of the lower part of a sub-alpine zone) has been identified in Strata 16 and 17. These data show that these strata are not only close in the section, but also in environmental conditions, and suggests that these strata have chronological proximity oIS 11. This assumption is supported by two arguments. First, at the bottom of Soil VII (Stratum 18), a warm climatic oscillation (so-called “ther-momer VII”—dry forest-steppe with walnut and other broad leaf trees—was identified. Second, similar dynamics of paleovegetation change from forest-steppe with walnut to sub-alpine meadows were recognized during oIS 11 at Treugol’naya Cave (Doronichev et al. 2004). Thus, all these data indicate that Assemblage VI at Korolevo I dates to the end of oIS 11 (probably between 370–390kyr). Based on this correlation, this assemblage can be considered one of the oldest Lower Paleolithic industries in Eastern Europe, along with Treugol’naya Cave (see Table 2).

According to Gladilin and Sitliviy (1990: 41), Assem-blage VI totaled 9,367 lithics. However, the methodical mis-take of combining in situ and surface artifacts—described above—also characterizes this assemblage, with stratified finds from Unit IX at Beyvar incorporated with surface col-lections from this and the next hill at Gostriy Verkh. Now that these materials have been re-analyzed, neither the ex-act number of stratified finds nor their true geological age are known. The chronological correlation suggested in this paper is not the only one (for another estimation of the age, see Haesaerts and Koulakovska [2006]).

It thus seems reasonable to draw conclusions about this assemblage based only on those artifacts that meet the following requirements—they are made not from andesite, but from nonvolcanic raw materials, and, are not surface artifacts originally included in the assemblage because of their degree of weathering. Nonvolcanic rocks (quartzite, quartz, flint, and slate) comprise 1.1% of all lithics (9,367 pieces) in the assemblage (Gladilin and Sitliviy 1990: 41), meaning about 100 pieces (Figure 10). The excavators note (ibid.) that 43.3% of 136 tools are made of these nonvolcanic rocks, i.e., about 60% of the total lithics made from nonvol-canic rocks were transformed into tools.

This has analogies with Treugol’naya Cave—in both Assemblage I and Assemblage II, tools comprise more than

50% of all lithics. Moreover, similar to Treugol’naya, As-semblage VI at Korolevo I represents a Lower Paleolithic industry of the Pre-Mousterian (Tayacian) techno-complex. It is indicative, that in the industry at Korolevo I, those components which appear separately within various lithic assemblages at Treugol’naya—namely, macro-tools (most-ly choppers) made on pebbles and small tools (mostly side-scrapers) made on flakes—are found in combination. Like Treugol’naya, Assemblage VI at Korolevo I lacks both Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technique, but this state-ment requires clarification. Earlier, three handaxes were re-ported in Assemblage VI (ibid.: 44; Tables IX-2, XII-3, XIV-1). However, none of them is a classical Acheulian biface. The best example in Table XIV-1 is a fragment of a bifacial leaf point similar to those found in the upper Assemblages V and Va at Korolevo I. Second, these three bifaces are made from andesite and, thus, can occur in surface collections. As to Levallois technique, the author notes that its use is no longer mentioned in Assemblage VI despite earlier reports (ibid.: 47). To the contrary, “an original technique of knap-ping…crushing of raw material by one blow” (Kulakovs-kaya 2003: 163) now is described in the assemblage.

�oN�luSIoN: THE PrE-MouSTErIAN(TA�A�IAN) �oMPlEx IN EASTErN EuroPEThe stratified sites discussed above are all today known as Lower Paleolithic locations in Eastern Europe (Figure 11�). Explanations of the rarity of these sites for reasons such as the absence of regular surveys for the Lower Paleolithic or destruction of Lower Paleolithic occupations by glacial ac-tivity or marine transgressions (Praslov 1995: 61), or that human dispersal was limited to areas with available raw materials for lithic productions (Liubin and Beliaeva 2006: 44), or that human behavioral strategies were not yet ad-equate for adaptation to the cold, continental environments of Eastern Europe prior to 300kyr (Hoffecker 2002: 42) are not exhaustive explanations. Contrary to these hypotheses, Lower Paleolithic sites (except for those dating to the end of Lower – beginning of the Middle Paleolithic) are absent or few even in those regions that were not affected by gla-ciers or marine transgressions, that have been investigated rather intensively, that are areas with good flint sources, and that did not experience cold climates through much of the Middle Pleistocene (such as Crimea, Moldova, and the Northwestern Caucasus). Most likely, the scarcity of Lower Paleolithic occupations really does reflect an insignificant human expansion into Eastern Europe in the Lower Paleo-lithic. Why these were practically “desolate landscapes” is as yet unknown. The author believes that the explanation may derive from less obvious reasons. Although it only can be offered as a hypothesis at this point, perhaps the expla-nation may be related to different group sizes and popu-lation densities for Lower Paleolithic hominins who used Acheulian biface technology as opposed to those groups that did not have this technological inventory.

Nevertheless, even the available poor evidence testifies to a cultural unification in the Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe. This unification is expressed in the absence of both


Acheulian handaxes and Levallois technologies from the oldest Assemblage IV at Treugol’naya Cave to the latest as-semblage at Khryashchy (see Table 2). And, it is supported by the fact that the Lower Paleolithic sites considered above are located at different ends of Eastern Europe, are made on various raw materials, and represent, on the whole, a rather large assemblage of almost 1,500 artifacts.

Thus, the hypothesis proposed more than 50 years ago by Zamiatnin (1951: 105) that “soon a number of facts, testifying to hand axe distribution in Central and Eastern Europe, will considerably increase” was not propheti-cal. Likewise, the hypothesis formulated in the 1950s by Liubin (1960: 9), about the possibility of an Acheulian cul-ture expansion from Western Asia through the Caucasus

Figure 10. Korolevo I open-air site, assemblage VI: 1: semi-Quina side-scraper with a back thinned with flat ventral retouch; 2: simple side-scraper with a back thinned with flat ventral retouch; 3, 4: simple side-scrapers; 5, 6: angled side-scrapers; 7: chopper. Modified after Gladilin and Sitliviy (1990).


A

BFigure 11A. “Movius Line” and the distribution of the Acheulian techno-complex (slanting shaded areas), including proposed routes and arrival dates of the Acheulian. The Lower Paleolithic stratified sites in Eastern Europe and Caucasus are marked: 1: Korolevo I; 2: Pogreby and Dubossary; 3: Khryashchy and Mikhailovskoe; 4: Treugol’naya Cave; 5: Weasel Cave; 6: Kudaro I, Kudaro III, and Tsona; 7: Amiranis-gora; 8: Dmanisi; 9: Azykh Cave. Modified after Kozlowski (2003: Figure 7.1).

Figure 11B. Map showing the distribution of the Acheulian and Pre-Mousterian cultures, after Obermaier (1925): I: distribution area of the Acheulian culture; II: distribution area of the Pre-Mousterian culture. Points show spread of the Lower Paleolithic cultures proposed by Obermaier: 1–1: spread of the “West Acheulian culture” to Western Europe from Africa; 2–2: southern route to Central Europe from Anatolia through Balkans; 3–3: spread of the “East Acheulian culture” of leaf points to Central Europe from Western Siberia. Source of data: Zamiatnin (1951).


to Eastern Europe, is not supported by the facts. On the contrary, more and more facts confirm one of obermaier’s (1925) ideas regarding the distribution in Central and East-ern Europe of “Pre-Mousterian culture” (today called the Pre-Mousterian complex) vis-à-vis the area of “Acheulian culture” distribution in Western Europe and Western Asia. The frontier for the maximum expansion of the Acheulian techno-complex in Europe and Asia, which is now known as the Movius Line (see Figure 11�), actually was first de-termined for Europe and Western Asia by Obermaier (Fig-ure 11B). By right of historical precedence for its Europe – West Asian section is more correctly called the “Obermaier Line.” Obermaier belived that the closest region to Eastern Europe with Acheulian was the Southern Caucasus. New discoveries in the Caucasian Paleolithic have generally con-firmed obermaier’s hypothesis, as well as introduced some important corrections to it.

THE LOwER PALEOLITHIC IN THESOUTHERN CAUCASUS BEfORE

THE A�HEulIAN (1,700,000–350,000�A)Geographically, the Paleolithic of the Southern Cauca-sus is part of the Paleolithic of Western Asia. Currently, the beginning of the Paleolithic in the Southern Caucasus and Western Asia has been shown to have an unexpected time depth—going back to about 1.7 million years ago (at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia). The end of the Low-er Paleolithic in the Caucasus can be attributed to ca. oIS 6 (Doronichev 2004). This coincides with the end of the Acheulo-Yabrudian in Western Asia at ca. 250kyr, based on TL chronology, or at ca. 200kyr, based on ESR chronology (Bar-Yosef 1995: Figure 1, 1998: 231).

DMANISI – A PrE-olDowAN ASSEMblAgE IN THE SOUTHERN CAUCASUSThe open-air site of Dmanisi in southern Georgia is now the earliest Paleolithic occupation in the Caucasus and all of Western Asia. The geological age of this site is defined by the boundary between the Late Pliocene and Early Pleis-tocene, between 1.81 and 1.7Ma ago (de Lumley H. et al. 2005; de Lumley M.-A. et al. 2006). Since 1991, five skulls, four mandibles, and numerous fragments of postcranial skeleton from at least five human individuals have been found here. The Dmanisi hominids occupy an intermediate position between the earliest African human groups, Homo habilis-rudolfensis and Homo ergaster, and are most similar to the first group, especially Homo rudolfensis (ER 1470). At the same time, in some features, the Dmanisi hominids dif-fer from both Homo habilis-rudolfensis and from the earliest humans in Eurasia (Homo erectus group). Therefore, homi-nids from Dmanisi have been assigned to a separate group, called Homo georgicus (de Lumley M.-A. et al. 2006). Earlier, researchers at this site hypothesized that hominids from Dmanisi could represent the hominine group the began the colonization of Europe and Asia (Gabunia et al. 2000а: 1025).

Archaeological collections from the 1991–1999 excava-tions at Dmanisi have been published (de Lumley H. et al. 2005). Although earlier reports noted either about 10,000 (Gabunia et al. 1999) or more than 1,000 (Gabunia et al. 2000а) lithics, now 4,446 stone pieces are identified from Layers I–VI at this site (de Lumley H. et al. 2005). The lithic collection from Dmanisi is very homogeneous, without any significant trends from the bottom to top layers. Complete pebbles, brought to the site from the closest small rivers (Mashavera and Pinesauri), compreise about 34% of the as-semblage. These pebble manuports represent the spectrum of rocks, which were used as raw materials for flaking and tool production at the site—mostly fine- or coarse-grained volcanic tuff, basalt, and other volcanic and metamorphic rocks. The next largest group (about 30% of total assem-blage) is composed of split pebbles and pebble fragments; percussion marks are frequently visible on their surfaces.

Complete pebbles with percussion marks located on their ends (hammerstones?), or with scar negatives, are not numerous (1.3% of total assemblage). Cores, made on com-plete or split pebbles, comprise 5% of the industry, complete and split pebbles are excluded. Cores are characterized by a little reduction and mainly cortical striking platforms. one-platform (42.3%) and two-platform (34.2%) cores are numer-ous, while mutiple-platform cores are rare (6.3%). There are many unretouched flakes of mostly small sizes. At the same time, about 31% of all flakes, as well as many split pebbles, pebble tools, and cores have irregular retouch, and separate notches apparently resulted from heavy utilization of these lithics. Thus, one of the basic characteristics of the Dmanisi industry is that humans flaked stones for the production of small flakes and then used them without retouching (ibid.). Pebble tools comprise 4.8% of total assemblage or 10% of the lithic industry. However, about 60% of pebble tools (6% of the industry) are so-called “primary choppers” (pebbles with a few flake scars). As there is no intensive secondary retouching on these lithics, one can assume they are instead pebble cores in the initial or trial stage of reduction. True choppers with extended working edges, formed by a series of scars (on average, by three scars), and having relatively standardized morphology comprise only 21.2% of pebble tools or 2.1 % of the industry. Chopping-tools make up 8.7% of pebble tools or 0.8% of the industry (ibid.).

Based on the age and the techno–typological character-istics of the lithic industry (Figure 12), the Dmanisi assem-blage is assigned to the “Pre-Oldowan” cultural horizon. This earliest type of hominine lithic industry or industrial complex, which appeared by 2.5Ma ago in East Africa and is characterized by the absence of fine retouched tools, has been recently identified in Africa as the evolutionary pre-decessor of the oldowan cultural horizon. The latter also appears in East Africa about 1.8Ma ago, and is marked by the occurrence of standardized, fine retouched tools (de Lumley H. et al. 2004).

Thus, Dmanisi documents the fact that the earliest hu-mans (probably bearing the most primitive Pre-Oldowan industry type) initially left Africa and appeared in Western Asia as early as 1.8Ma ago. Their further dispersal to Medi-


Figure 12. Dmanisi open-air site: 1, 2: choppers; 3: orthogonal core; 4: discoid unifacial core; 5, 7, 9: Clactonian flakes; 6: globular core; 8, 10: flakes. Source of data: de Lumley et al. (2005).


terranean Europe is apparently found at Barranko Leon (ca. 1.3Ma) and Fuente Nueva 3 (ca. 1.2Ma) (de Lumley H. et al. 2005). However, in the Caucasus, a long (more than one million years) hiatus in Lower Paleolithic occupation occurs after the Dmanisi episode. The author agrees that, contrary to Mediterranean Europe, Dmanisi is a record of “limited in time and not having direct continuation the ear-liest episode of early hominid penetration into the southern limits of Caucasus” (Liubin and Beliaeva 2006: 29).

THE APPEARANCE Of THE ACHEULIAN�oMPlEx IN wESTErN ASIA‘Ubeidiya in Israel, which is dated to about 1.4Ma, is the most ancient and the unique Lower Acheulian stratified site in Western Asia. About 8,000 artifacts have been found in total, the majority of which are distributed among 13 ba-sic archaeological assemblages (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar 1993). The lithic industries of ‘Ubeidiya are manufactured mainly on basalt and silicified raw materials. Like Dmanisi, the debitage includes flakes with plain platforms and vari-ous cores, from one-platform to bifacial discoid or poly-hedrons. Tools are represented by choppers, small flake tools, spheroids, and bifaces. Among bifaces, the types indicative for the Developed oldowan B or Lower Acheu-lian in East Africa—proto-bifaces, proto-limandes (“irregular ovals”), naviformes (“double pointed”), picks, bifaces with unworked bases—are well represented (ibid.: Table 24). Al-though the ‘Ubeidiya assemblage as a whole is described by the excavators as Lower Acheulian, the occurrence of hominids, who did not make bifaces, is suggested in the earliest strata of the site (Bar-Yosef 1998: 242).

Certainly, the data available now are insufficient for an unequivocal interpretation, and various points of view are possible. one of them is that Dmanisi and ‘Ubeidiya reflect diachronic migration waves of various human groups from Africa to Western Asia (ibid.: 269). on the other hand, one can assume that Dmanisi and ‘Ubeidiya both reflect a re-gional, West Asian transition from Oldowan or even Pre-oldowan (Dmanisi and the earliest assemblages of ‘Ubeidi-ya) to Lower Acheulian (main assemblages of ‘Ubeidiya)—a transition similar to that is revealed in one section in Oldu-vai Gorge in East Africa (Doronichev 2004).

THE LOwER PALEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH-ERN CAUCASUS IN THE LATE EARLy TO EAR-l� MIDDlE PlEISTo�ENEUntil recently, it was believed that a unique Lower Paleo-lithic location close in age to ‘Ubeidiya was the open-air site, Amiranis Gora (or Akhalkalaki), in Southern Georgia (Gabunia 2000). A rich fauna (Akhalkalakian complex) is contemporary with the Tamanian faunal complex from Eastern Europe (1.4–0.8Ma) or bio-zone MN19 (Gabunia et al. 2000b: Figure 13), meaning that it is coincident with the same bio-zone as the fauna from ‘Ubeidiya (between 1.4–1.0Ma). The lithic collection from Amiranis Gora (20 pieces) includes cores, retouched and non-retouched flakes, side-

scrapers, and a few pebble manuports, and was assigned to the Early Acheulian (Gabunia 2000: 46). New excavation was undertaken at Akhalkalaki by a joint American–Geor-gian expedition in 1995–1996 and indicated that the age of the site was most likely in the late Matuyama Chron, prob-ably between 980kyr and 780kyr. This excavation, howev-er, did not conclusively demonstrate whether this location is an archaeological site, as no lithic artifacts were found in situ in association with the Early Pleistocene fauna. The artifacts reported by Gabunia (2000) were probably rede-posited from the surface through ancient and recent rodent borrows filled with sediment and mixed in with the older fauna (Tappen et al. 2002).

A few Middle Acheulian sites in Western Asia are dat-ed to the end of Early – first half of Middle Pleistocene (Bar-Yosef 1998). The best known is Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in Israel (Goren-Inbar 2000) and Latamne in Syria (Bar-Yosef 1998). Despite a small number of lithic industries, a chrono-logical continuation of the Acheulian assemblages from the Lower Acheulian of ‘Ubeidiya facies to the Middle Acheu-lian of Latamne facies can be suggested in the Levant. It was Korobkov (1978: 156‒157) who first proposed that this be classified as the “Ubeidiya – Latamna Acheulian Tradi-tion.” Certain biface types are characteristic for the Acheu-lian assemblages of this tradition—elongated lanceolates or ficrons and biface-picks or trihedrals.

In the Southern Caucasus, Middle Acheulian sites are as yet unknown. Here there are no Levantine Middle Acheulian biface types (ficrons or picks) or the associated inventory of core-choppers, polyhedrons, and spheroids. Liubin (1998b: 27) also notes the absence of “the most ar-chaic Levantine Acheulian industries with bifaces, as the industries of ‘Ubeidiya, Joub Jannine and Latamne” or “the ‘Ubeidiya – Latamne tradition” in the Southern Caucasus. Today in the Southern Caucasus, Lower Paleolithic strati-fied finds, presumably dating to the first half of Middle Pleistocene (from 800kyr to 350kyr), are known only from the 11 unpublished lithics from Stratum 8а at Kudaro III Cave (Liubin 1998а) and a few artifacts, which can be iden-tified among more than 200 “possibiliths” in Strata VII–IX at Azykh Cave (ibid.: Figure 9–1, 10–2, 3, and 7). However, the age of all these finds is problematic. The Stratum 8а age at Kudaro III is supported by just one TL date 560 ± 112kyr bp, raising doubts for the following reasons:

According to the geomorphologic data, the Kudaro I and Kudaro III caves were opened by erosion and, hence, became available for human occupation no earlier than 300–400kyr (Nesmey-anov 1999: Table 21.1, 336); The single TL date may be incorrect, as applica-tion of the TL method for dating rock fragments contained in cave deposits is problematic from a methodical point of view. Quartz or feldspar grains used for measurement of the luminescence can originate from much older rocks comprising the cave cavity. The impurity of such more an-cient grains sometimes results in significantly older TL results (Schwarcz and Rink 2001: 364);

1.

2.


A synthesis by the author of radiometric and bio-stratigraphical data on the chronology of the Lower Paleolithic cave sites in Caucasus (Do-ronichev 2004) shows a much later age for the Acheulian assemblages in the Kudarian caves, Azykh, and Tsona, compared to Treugol’naya Cave (Table 3).

As for the lithics in Strata VII–X at Azykh Cave, when examining this material (231 pieces) in 2002, the author de-termined that only five were artifacts—a slightly abraded semi-cortical flake made from non-local red flint and an end-scraper on a brown flint flake in Stratum X; and, an unabraded chopper made on a sandstone slab and two flakes from grey basalt (both unabraded) in Stratum VII. However, there is some doubt about the original positions of these artifacts within the strata, as they may derive from collapsed sediments of the overlying layers (person. comm. of Mansurov, who participated in the excavation at Azykh, 2002). other stones in Strata VII–X include abraded grey flint pebbles of different sizes (some up to 15–20cm), pebble fragments, and grey flint fragments with rolled edges.

Thus, in the Southern Caucasus there currently are no definitive Lower Paleolithic finds which can be dated con-fidently to the earlier Middle Pleistocene or earlier, i.e., to the period after the “Dmanisi episode.” The only stratified site which can be used to discuss the Paleolithic in Cauca-sus during this period is Treugol’naya Cave. Based on the stratified assemblages found and excavated recently (Dma-nisi and Treugol’naya), and recently published results of dating of the Acheulian layers at the long known cave sites of Kudaro I and Kudaro III, it is possible to draw the fol-lowing conclusions:

Contrary Liubin’s proposal, it is not the Acheu-lian complex but industries without Acheulian bifaces that comprise the main cultural horizon of the Lower Paleolithic in the Caucasus; This non-Acheulian horizon is now documented in the Caucasus from 1.7Ma ago (Pre-oldowan industry of Dmanisi) up to 350kyr ago (Pre-Mous-terian industry of Treugol’naya Cave); and, The earliest stratified Upper Acheulian industries appear by 350–330kyr in the caves of Azykh and Kudaro I (see Table 3).

It is necessary to remember that the Tayacian industries were noted early on in the Caucasus. For example, Liubin (1984) identified three groups of Lower Paleolithic indus-tries in the Caucasus: a) “true Acheulian” assemblages with many bifaces; b) assemblages of the Acheulian of “Proto-Charentian appearance” with rare bifaces; and, c) Clacto-nian or Tayacian assemblages without bifaces. However, the Tayacian Complex was identified on the basis of only surface and mixed materials (the first being the Yashtukh location near Sukhumi, Abkhazia). on the other hand, the Acheulian complex was recovered not only in these types of situations, including typologically expressive obsidian lithic collections from the Little Caucasus, but also from stratified contexts in the caves of Kudaro I, Kudaro III, Tso-na, and Azykh. Analysis of stratified Acheulian industries

3.

1.

2.

3.

(from the oldest to the latest) in the Caucasus is presented below.

THE UPPER ACHEULIAN IN THE SOUTHERN �Au�ASuS (350,000–200,000K�)

THE UPPER ACHEULIAN IN wESTERN ASIA AND THE fIRST ACHEULIAN INDUSTRIES IN THE CAUCASUSToday about 170 Acheulian locations and stratified sites are known in the Levant (Bar-Yosef 1998), and the overwhelm-ing majority of them date to the second half of the Middle Pleistocene. The Levantine Upper Acheulian essentially differs from the Lower and Middle Acheulian assemblages in the following features (ibid.):

predominance of flint or silicified raw materials;a change in biface typology, with a prevalence of classical Acheulian biface types of pointed (lan-ceolate or triangular), rounded (oval or discoid), or cordiform (amygdaloid or cordiform) shapes, and an absence of picks and ficrons characteristic of the Lower or Middle Acheulian;a more careful finishing of bifaces with an increas-ing role of soft hammer technique and reduction of biface sizes in the latest assemblages;rarity of choppers, polyhedrons and spheroids; and, the first appearance and further development of the Levallois technique.

Thus, a break in cultural continuity probably occurs be-tween the Lower – Middle Acheulian (’Ubeidiya – Latamna Tradition and Gesher Benot Ya’aqov) and the Upper Acheu-lian in Levant.

The Levantine Upper Acheulian assemblages are char-acterized by significant typological variability that is es-pecially clear in the biface typology. In Israel, the Upper Acheulian is divided into several industry groups or types (Bar-Yosef 1998; Gilead 1970). The earlier Upper Acheu-lian groups (Ma’ayan Barukh Group and Sahel el-Khous-sin-Yiron Group) are characterized by the prevalence of cordiform-shaped (amygdaloid, cordiform, and sub-trian-gular) or rounded (oval or discoid) bifaces, then lanceolate or triangular bifaces, and biface-cleavers; thee is insignifi-cant use of Levallois technique (IL usually does not ex-ceed 12%). The later groups (Evron-Kissufim Group and Acheulo-Yabrudian) are characterized by a combination of rounded and triangular-shaped bifaces and usually more significant use of Levallois technique. Acheulo-Yabrudian (or Yabrudian) assemblages also are characterized by sig-nificant numbers of Quina type side-scrapers. Yabrudian is considered to be a specific cultural phenomenon within the end of Lower Paleolithic (from 400 to 250–200kyr) in the Levant. Bar-Yosef (1998: 268) assumed the Yabrudian ap-peared in the territory of Israel and then spread from there to Lebanon and Syria. A unique Acheulo-Yabrudian assem-blage in the Caucasus seems to be the Tsopi open-air site in Southern Georgia (Golovanova and Doronichev 2003).

1.2.

3.

4.

5.


BARY

SHNIKOV 1993, 1999;

TABL

E 3. PRO

POSE

D CHRO

NOLO

GY OF TH

E LO

WER PALE

OLITH

IC STR

ATIFIED ASSEM

BLAGES IN THE CAUCASU

S BA

SED ON ABS

OLU

TE DATE

S AND LARG

E MAMMAL SP

ECIES. SOURC

ES OF DATA

:DORO

NICHEV ET AL. 2004; H

OFF

ECKER ET AL. 2003; LIU

BIN 1998A

; LIU

BIN AND BEL

IAEV

A 2004A

. AGE OF OIS STA

GES AFT

ER AITKEN AND STO

KES (1

997).

OIS

Ageof

LowerPaleolithic

Chronometric

LargeMammals

Stages

OIS

CaveSites

Datainkyrago

Wolf

Cave bear

Med

iterran

ean

Brow

nRh

inoceros

Roe de

erRe

d de

erBison

Stages

Total

Total

bear

bear

(Kyr)

Lithics

LithicIndustries

AcheulIan

Canis

Spelaearctos

Selenarctos

Ursus

Stephanorhin

Capreolus

Cervus

Bison

us

Bifaces

mediterraneus

arctos

capreolus

elaphus

priscus

190

105

Tsona

>15?

C.lupus

S.spelaeus

U.arctos

C.capreolus

C.elaphus

B.priscus

238

KudaroI,LensesX

5172 ± 35 (R

TL)

35KudaroIII,Layer5

1245 ± 49; 252 ± 51 (RTL

)C.lupus

S.?

deningeri

S.mediterraneus

C.capreolus

C.elaphus

Bisonsp.

718

KudaroIII,Layer6

0C.lupus

S.deningeripraekudarensis

S.mediterraneus

C.capreolus

C.elaphus

7KudaroIII,Layer7

0C.lupus


C.capreolus

C.elaphus

Bisonsp.

20KudaroIII,Layer8

0C.lupus


C.capreolus

C.elaphus

Bisonsp.

11KudaroIII,Layer8a

0560 ± 112 (RTL

)C.lupus


C.capreolus

C.elaphus

244

8244–

301

289

Azykh,LayerV

7C.lupus

S.?

spelaeus

S.mediterraneus

S.mercki

C.capreolus

301

~ 3,800

KudaroI,Layers5a

–5b

13322 ± 65; 350 ± 70 (RTL

)C.lupus


U.arctos

Stephanorhinussp.

C.capreolus

C.elaphus

Bisonsp.

binagadensis?

684

KudaroI,Layer5c

2360 ± 90 (R

TL); > 250-300 (T/U

)C.mosbachensis


S.mediterraneus

S.hundsheim

ensis

Capreolussp.

C.elaphus

Bisonsp.

(cf.acoronatus)

334

188

KudaroI,Layers5d

–f0

101,890

Azykh,LayerVI

1S.spelaeus?

U.aff.arctos

S.hundsheim

ensis

S.mercki

C.elaphus

B.schoetensacki

Stenon horses

Equus

E.suessenbornensis?

364

Treugolnaya,Layer4a

C.mosbachensis

S.deningeri(cf.deningeri)

C.elaphus

B.priscus

cf.C.suessenbornensis

(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki

280

Treugolnaya,Layer4b

0366 ± 12 (E

SR ena

mel)

C.mosbachensis


C.elaphus

B.priscus


(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki

Treugolnaya,Layer4c

375 ± 9

(ESR

enam

el)


C.elaphus

B.priscus

(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki

1170

Treugolnaya,Layer4d

0C.mosbachensis


C.elaphus


(cf.acoronatus)

Treugolnaya,Layer5a

418 ± 10

(ESR

enam

el)

E.altidens

27Treugolnaya,Layer5b

0406 ± 15 (E

SR ena

mel)

C.mosbachensis


S.mediterraneus

S.hundsheim

ensis

C.elaphus

B.priscus

427

365 ± 28; 420 ±

39

(ESR

molluscs)

(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki

12427–

474

Treugolnaya,Layer5c

C.mosbachensis


S.hundsheim

ensis

C.elaphus

B.priscus


(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki

13474–

528

Treugolnaya,Layer6

504 ± 24

(ESR

enam

el)


E.altidens

S.hundsheim

ensis

C.elaphus

B.priscus


(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki

568

Treugolnaya,Layer7a

C.mosbachensis


C.elaphus

B.priscus

1518

0

583±25

(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki

621

(ESR m

olTreugolnaya,Layer7b

luscs - 6 dates)

C.mosbachensis


S.hundsheim

ensis

C.elaphus

B.priscus

(cf.acoronatus)

schoetensacki


Bar-Yosef (1995) also proposed presumably synchronous Acheulo-Yabrudian and, typologically distinct from it, Up-per Acheulian assemblages in the Southern Levant, East Turkey and the Southern Caucasus (at Kudaro I).

According to Liubin (1998а: 172), “The Caucasus (princi-pally the Transcaucasus) is a distribution area of the Acheu-lian sensu strictu, meaning the Acheulian industries with bifaces.” Indeed, the Caucasian Lower Paleolithic stratified assemblages (all in caves) contain various numbers of bifa-cial tools. Among them, Liubin identifies Acheulian bifaces and cleavers, and defines these assemblages as the Acheu-lian. At the same time, Liubin (ibid.) notes that “bifaces of classical types (lanceolate, Micoquian, cordiform, amygda-loid, oval, etc.) with correct linear outlines, manufactured using continuous bifacial retouch, and biconvex in cross section are not numerous here” while predominant types are “bifaces of no classical type”—partial, backed, various, and “transitional to side-scrapers with bifacial retouch.” For example, “in the Kudarian Acheulian industries, it is possible to recognize as “classical” bifaces only 6–7 of 63 handaxes recovered here” (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 29). The other bifaces include a wide spectrum of tool types—core-like bifaces, bifacial tools reworked from cores, bifa-cial side-scrapers, side-scrapers with thinned backs, etc. All these biface variations are not diagnostic forms of the Acheulian techno-complex.

The Acheulian Assemblage from layer vI at Azykh �aveBased on the faunal data, only Layer VI in Azykh and Layer 5b in Kudaro I can be compared in age with the top Middle Pleistocene layers at Treugol’naya. This is because these three specific contexts contain diagnostic species of the late Tiraspolian faunal complex of the earlier Middle Pleisto-cene—according to the latest data (Baryshnikov 2002), this fauna is defined as the early Singilian—such as Mosbahian wolf (Canis mosbachensis), small rhinoceros Stephanorhi-nus hundsheimensis, red deer similar to Cervus elaphus cf. acoronatus, and steppe bison similar to Bison schoetensacki (see Table 3). Faunal data suggest that Layer VI in Azykh, rather than Layer 5b in Kudaro I, is chronologically closer to Treugol’naya. Stenon horses, well-represented in the Early Pleistocene faunas at Dmanisi and Amiranis-Gora, are found also in the Lower Paleolithic Caucasus sites—in Layer VI at Azykh and at Treugol’naya Cave. Typical for the Early Pleistocene Gallerian fauna is small horse, Equus altidens—found at Treugol’naya and Dmanisi (Hoffecker et al. 2003)—and Equus suessenbornensis, in Layer VI at Azykh Cave (Velichko et al. 1980), and comprising 76.5% of the fauna at Amiranis-Gora (Gabunia 2000).

The palynological data (Zelikson and Gubonina 1985) documents a significant climatic cooling and lowering of flora belts by 800–1000m during the formation of Layer VI in Azykh. In the vicinity of the cave, conditions of forest and sub-alpine border zones existed. Today the cave is located at only 800masl. In the past, its elevation was probably even lower. These data together with the bio-stratigraphical (fau-nal) evidence indicate that Layer VI at Azykh was formed

during a cold (glacial) period, apparently, during cold oIS 10 (330–360kyr). Hence, chronologically, this layer appears to be a little younger than the top Middle Pleistocene Lay-ers 4a–c at Treugol’naya Cave, which date to the end of oIS 11 (see Table 3).

Liubin (1998а) provided the most complete typological description of the industry from Layer VI at Azykh Cave. Among 1,890 stone artifacts from Layer VI, Liubin identi-fied 1,116 flakes (including 136 blades and several Leval-lois flakes), 427 tools, and only 9 cores. Indices of blades (12.1%), and plain (54.5%), dihedral (31%), and faceted (14%) platforms are provided. Among flake tools, side-scrapers (207 pieces) are the most numerous and variable, especially simple scrapers (97), then double (33), transver-sal (21), angular single (20) or double (6), ventral (15), and convergent (13) scrapers; other side-scraper types are rare. Besides side-scrapers, 18 denticulates and 44 “cutting tools with denticulate edges,” 24 end-scrapers, 15 notches, 7 mas-sive denticulate Tayacian points, 5 massive points similar to “pointe surelevée,” 6 limaces, and 4 awls are noted. When examining this industry in 2002, the author also identified a few side-scrapers with thinned back and Quinson points.

Macro-tools are not numerous (31 pieces). Choppers (16), chopping-tools (5), and atypical cleaver-like tools (3) are made mainly on flat pebbles. Liubin and Beliaeva (ibid.: 252) identified 13 “core-like scrapers” (Figure 13: 2, 4), which can be defined as rabots (type 56 in Bordes’ type-list). End-scrapers of rabot type are rare in the Lower or Middle Paleolithic in Europe (Debénath and Dibble 1994: 115). They are characteristic, however, of the Upper Acheu-lian at Kudaro I (see below). Liubin (1998а: 33) also noted an original rostro-carinated form—a uniface made on a split slate slab (see Figure 13: 1), which has a cordiform outline and lateral flaking reminiscent of partial cordiform bifaces from Kudaro I. Besides these macro-tools, the author’s ex-amination of this assemblage noted a bifacial knife of tsaldi type (fragmented at the base).

Among the eight handaxes and eight small handaxes identified by Liubin, there are no typical Acheulian bifaces with symmetrical outlines. Almost all “handaxes” are made on flat pebbles by rough partial flaking of their surfaces and without form enhancement using fine flaking or retouch-ing. Therefore, their descriptions include adjectives such as “rough,” “archaic,” and “primitive” (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 251). No well-made Acheulian handaxe is present in this industry. only the largest example, defined by Liu-bin as amygdaloid biface, could be assigned to Acheulian bifaces, although this tool is just partially worked by large removals and has modifying retouching only along one lat-eral (see Figure 13: 5). Probably some bifaces, defined by Liubin in Layer VI, are cores. It should be noted that, in this layer, Liubin identified only 9 cores for 1,116 flakes—a ratio atypical for the Lower Paleolithic. The author believes that some exhausted cores were reworked into tools and, hence, would be defined as core-like bifaces (see Debénath and Dibble 1994: 168). An example of a core-like biface is the one broken during the excavation and described by Liubin (1998а:33) as “the most perfect handaxe” in the collection


Figure 13. Azykh Cave, layer VI: 1: elongated cordiform uniface; 2, 4: core-like end-scrapers or rabots; 3, 6: core-like bifaces; 5: amyg-daloidal partial biface. Source of data: Liubin (1998a); Liubin and Beliaeva (2004a).


(see Figure 13: 3). A series of “small handaxes” are represented by “par-

tial and atypical” small bifaces “made from slate or sand-stone flakes or residual cores” and their “retouch has, as a rule, only a lateral character” (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 252). They also noted (ibid.) “a series of similar small, as a rule, atypical bifaces, made on similar raw material, in the Acheulian inventory at Kudaro I and Tsona Cave.” obvi-ously, at all the sites, this biface group incorporates differ-ent tool types, including core-like bifaces (see Figure 13: 6) or bifacial side-scrapers.

Thus, while the industry of Layer VI at Azykh Cave does not have standardized forms of Acheulian bifaces, this assemblage does show techno-typological features that do not occur in this combination anywhere, except for the Acheulian materials at Kudaro I. These features are:

advanced flake technique basing on parallel flak-ing (about 12% of all flakes are laminar flakes; 14% of striking platforms are prepared, but finely faceted platforms are few);simple side-scrapers dominate the tool kit, and many of them have natural backs;a group of convergent tools, including angular and convergent scrapers, denticulate Tayacian points, Quinson points, massive points of “pointe surelevée” type, and proto-limaces, are well-rep-resented;among macro-tools, besides choppers, there are rabots;Acheulian bifaces are rare and characterized by a combination of massive amygdaloid bifaces made on pebbles or boulders (at Azykh, one roughly flaked partial amygdaloid biface) and flat partly bifacial sub-cordiform bifaces (at Azykh, a uni-face) made on flakes; and,in this collection, the author noted a fragmented bifacial knife of tsaldi type—a type known only at Kudaro I and Tsona in the Caucasus.

In summary, it is necessary to note that Layer VI at Azykh Cave not only represents the oldest Upper Acheu-lian stratified assemblage in the Caucasus, but also shows the main diagnostic features of that cultural phenomenon, which Liubin (1984) identified as a Proto-Charentian vari-ant of Acheulian. Now, after a reappraisal of the Proto-Charentian aspect of the Acheulian from cave sites in the Southern Caucasus, this variant should be redefined as a Kudarian variant of the Upper Acheulian or as the Kudar-ian. This definition is similar to how, in the Levant, a site name Yabrud was used as the label for the Yabrudian vari-ant of the Upper Acheulian or Yabrudian. Further develop-ment of the Kudarian variant can be observed at the ep-onym site of Kudaro I Cave.

�hronology of the Acheulian Assemblages at Kudaro I and Kudaro III The faunal data indicate the later age of the Lower Paleo-lithic layers at the caves of Kudaro I and Kudaro III com-pared to Layer VI at Azykh. Stratigraphically, the earliest

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

strata of the Kudarian caves are the lowest layers 5c–5f at Kudaro I. of these, only Layer 5c has faunal remains. In this layer, Mosbahian wolf (earlier defined as Canis cf. еtruscus), rhinoceros Stephanorhinus hundsheimensis (earlier defined as Dicerorhinus etruscus brachycephalus) and red deer simi-lar to C. elaphus acoronatus were found. These species were not identified in any other layer at the Kudarian caves, as was the case at the nearby Tsona Cave. At all of these sites, the later Kvaisa faunal complex, identified by Barysh-nikov (2002) as an analogue of the later Middle Pleisto-cene Khazarian fauna, is present. It includes mostly living forms of those species represented by their fossil forms at Treugol’naya Cave (see Table 3).

According to the pollen data, Acheulian layers at Kud-aro I formed during a long interglacial period. Based on three radio–thermoluminiscent (RTL) and a Th/U date, this period appears to correspond to the warm oIS 9 (see Table 3). In Layers 5b–5c, conditions of a warm and dry (Layer 5c and the upper part of Layer 5b) interglaciation with a very warm and humid optimum (Layer 5b) and domina-tion of arid forest-steppe (Layer 5c and top of Layer 5b) or humid forested (Layer 5b) landscapes were identified. Wooded areas, which have no analogies in modern forests in the Caucasus, were represented by mixed coniferous and broad leaf forests with a prevalence of pine and vari-ous deciduous trees including many arboreal exotics (Liu-bin 1998а: 52–56, Table 1; Pospelova et al. 2001). Today the Kudaro I Cave is located 800 m above Azykh Cave, while in the Lower Paleolithic the altitude of Kudaro I was some 1200–1350 m.a.s.l. (Nesmeyanov 1999). During the accumu-lation of the lower part of Acheulian Layer 5а at Kudaro I, climate deterioration (conditions of a sub-alpine belt under cold and humid climate) is noted, while in mid-Layer 5а, a moderate warming is expressed by conditions of middle and high-mountain coniferous woods (Liubin 1998а: Table 1). The age of the Acheulian layers at Kudaro I as within oIS 9 agrees with the geomorphologic data. These indicate that the cave was opened by erosion and became accessible to human occupation presumably by 300–250kyr ago (Nes-meyanov 1999: 336).

At Kudaro III Cave, the pollen spectrum reflects mostly warm climatic conditions with domination of forest-steppe landscapes in Lower Paleolithic Layers 6–8а. The cooling intervals, identified during this warm phase, were either moderate (in Layer 8), or their paleogeographical recon-structions were impossible (in Layer 8а) because of the rarity of pollen grains (Liubin 1998а: 81‒83). Assumptions about the pollen data synchronization of the top Acheulian Layer 5а at Kudaro I with Layer 5 at Kudaro III (ibid.: 83) are based only on the similarity of the pollen spectra, but are not supported by other data. According to Nesmeyanov (1999: 336), the opening (by erosion) of Kudaro III occurred by 200kyr ago, i.e., approximately 50–100 thousand years later than Kudaro I. Thus, if correlation of the Acheulian layers at Kudaro I with oIS 9 (330–300kyr) seems to be the most probable from faunal, geomorphologic, and palyno-logical data, as well as absolute dates, the same data (see Table 3) allow one to correlate the Acheulian layers at Kud-


aro III with the younger oIS 7 (250–200kyr). Probably only the uppermost Middle Pleistocene strata at Kudaro I (ero-sional lenses X and Z cut into Layer 5a) are correlated with oIS 7. This age definition is supported by an RTL date of 172±35kyr bp, obtained for the eroded top of the Acheulian strata at Kudaro I (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 265).

The Lower Paleolithic material at Kudaro III is not very numerous. Only 91 lithics were found from Layers 5–8а—Layer 5 had 35, Layer 6 had 18, Layer 7 had seven, Layer 8 had 20, and Layer 8а had 11. The lithics are rep-resented mainly by flakes and fragments. Tools number no more than 13 pieces, mostly found in the top of Layer 5. Certainly, this collection is insufficient for industrial di-agnostics. The only diagnostic form is found in Layer 5, a large (19.3cm х 8.1cm) lageniform biface (Liubin 1998а: Figure 43-6)—a type known at Kudaro I in the uppermost Acheulian assemblage from lenses X1–3 only (see below in Figure 19: 2, 3).

At Kudaro I, the Lower Paleolithic deposits are 1–2.5m in depth, and were excavated in an area of about 98m2. The excavation area was divided into four parts—the eastern and southern entrance galleries, a dark internal gallery, and the central chamber, into which all three galleries en-ter. The Lower Paleolithic deposits are subdivided into strata (from top to down) as follows: erosional lenses X1–3 and R1–3 were excavated only in the dark gallery; Layers 5a, 5b, and 5c were excavated in all parts of the cave; Layers 5d, 5e, and 5f were excavated within a limited area only in the southern gallery. Some 5,732 lithics were found in total in all these layers (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 211).

Because the excavations in the cave were carried out since 1955, various methodical strategies were used over the years. The largest collection (2,268 lithics or about 40% of all finds) is from the excavation of the central chamber in 1955, 1959, and 1961. Methods used were substandard compared to modern excavations. The Lower Paleolithic sediments were dug in arbitrary horizons of 10–15cm each. The same technique of arbitrary horizons was typical of the 1955–1956 excavations in the southern gallery, where 585 lithics were found, and during 1957–1958 excavations in the eastern gallery, where 983 lithics were found (ibid.: 41, 83, 164, 211). The Lower Paleolithic collections from the central chamber, eastern gallery, and 1955–1956 excavations in the southern gallery therefore have no level-by-level designa-tion. All together, 3,836 stone artifacts or 67% of all lithics found in the cave were recovered from these early excava-tion seasons. If this material is augmented by the 179 arti-facts which came from the collapsed sediments of the exca-vation in the dark gallery (ibid.: 121), then artifacts without level-by-level designations make up 70% of all the Lower Paleolithic artifacts from Kudaro I. Certainly, one can say that the application of modern methodical approaches with a priority on level-by-level analysis of the archaeological material is limited. However, such an approach is feasible for the remaining 30% of the finds and, with certain cave-ats, can be accomplished for most of the collections that were not divided into layers. A level-by-level analysis of the Lower Paleolithic at Kudaro I is justified because this is

the only methodically correct approach. Besides, it has the potential to reveal some tendencies in the development of the Kudarian Acheulian variant.

layers 5d–5f (Assemblage v) at Kudaro I �aveAt Kudaro I, the oldest Lower Paleolithic in Layers 5d–5f was investigated only in the 1986–1987 excavations in the southern gallery. Lithics are distributed in the layers as fol-lows: Layers 5d–e has 90 and Layer 5f has 98. Taking into account the localized distribution of these layers and the small number of finds in each level, these artifacts can be seen as a separate assemblage, especially because the ex-cavators consider that the finds from Layers 5d–-5f are all together “the lower bed of Layer 5” (ibid.: 167‒169).

The archaeological assemblage from “the lower bed of Layer 5” thus numbers 188 lithics in total. They are made only from rocks occurring in the vicinity of the cave—sand-stone, slate, alevrolite, and local flint (ibid.: Table 15). The assemblage includes 10 cores and core-like pieces (includ-ing four one-platform, a double platform, a sub-discoid, and a globuleaux type), 99 flakes and flake fragments, 26 small (<2.5 cm) flakes or chips, and 53 tools. According to the ex-cavators (ibid.: Table 17), the tool set includes 2 choppers, 2 pebble scrapers, 5 small handaxes, a leaf-like tool, 15 side-scrapers (of which 10 are simple scrapers), 5 end-scrapers, 5 notches, 5 denticulates, 2 becs, and 9 composite tools. The reference to artifact descriptions and illustrations, provid-ed by Liubin and Beliaeva (ibid.: 178‒180, Figures 115–117), allows one to conclude that all reported “handaxes” and a “leaf-like tool” are actually rather residual cores without modifying secondary retouch; true Acheulian bifaces are absent.

Thus, the lithic assemblage from Layers 5d–5f at Kudaro I is characterized by flake technique, a set of flake tools, rare macro-tools (pebble scrapers [ibid.: Figures 115-8, 9; 116-2]), and an absence of Acheulian handaxes. Among flake tools, alongside simple side-scrapers, end-scrapers, and notched and denticulate tools, one can note a type charac-teristic for the Kudarian Acheulian—a simple side-scraper with the ends thinned with flat ventral retouch (Figure 14: 1). Based on the absence of Acheulian handaxes, the earli-est industry at Kudaro I may be formally called the Pre-Mousterian. However, taking into account the small num-ber of tools (only 51 tools in all of Layers 5d–5f compared to more than 200 tools in all layers at Treugol’naya Cave or about 430 tools in Layer VI at Azykh), one can hypothesize that the absence of Acheulian bifaces or other characteristic Kudarian Acheulian tool types (except for a side-scraper with thinned ends) is explained simply by the small num-ber of artifacts.

layer 5� (Assemblage Iv) at Kudaro IThe next Lower Paleolithic assemblage at Kudaro I is repre-sented by finds from Layer 5c. These include 225 artifacts, found in the 1986–1987 excavations in the southern gallery, and 459 artifacts from the 1978–1984 excavations in the dark gallery. In the dark gallery, excavators labelled Layer 5c as “the fourth Acheulian level” (ibid.: 122, 131, 165). Fol-


Figure 14. Kudaro I Cave: 1, 2, 10, 16, 17: simple side-scrapers with bases thinned with flat ventral retouch; 3: limace; 4, 5, 9, 21, 22: end-scrapers; 6, 7, 20, 23: angled side-scrapers; 8: Tayacian point; 11, 12: simple side-scrapers with deep modifying retouch; 13: Quina side-scrapers with back thinned with flat ventral retouch; 14: Quinson point; 15: convergent side-scraper; 18, 19: massive points. 1: Assemblage V; 2‒9: Assemblage IV; 10‒23: Main Assemblage III. Source of data: Liubin and Beliaeva (2004a).


lowing this nomenclature, one can refer to total collection from Layer 5c from both the galleries as Assemblage IV. If so, then it is logical to label the total collection from the underlying Layers 5d–5f as Assemblage V.

Assemblage IV totals 684 artifacts. They are made mostly from local rocks—various slates or sandstones, and then local flints. Imported rocks (more than 15 lithics from non-local flint, eight andesite, and one obsidian piece) are represented by flakes and tools only, while cores from non-local rocks are absent. Assemblage IV includes (ibid.: Tables 9, 15) 22 cores and core-like pieces, 441 flakes and flake fragments, 51 small (<2.5cm) flakes or chips, 17 sand-stone pebble manuports, and 171 tools. Liubin and Beliaeva (ibid.: 131‒133, 176‒178) defined the following tool types:

Macro-tools made from pebbles or fragments in-clude three chopping-tools (ibid.: Figure 82-1), three choppers (ibid.: Figure 82-2, 112-4), a proto-handaxe (Figure 15: 1), four core-like scrapers— rabots—and eight hammer stones.Among the four handaxes, five small handaxes, and three leaf-like tools, identified by the excava-tors (ibid.), are two roughly flaked tool fragments and a small (10.2 х 6.6cm) sub-cordiform biface with a tip broken in antiquity. It is made on a flake and has partial ventral retouch along the contour and a base retouched from the dorsal face. Another Acheulian handaxe with a broken end has an atyp-ical morphology noted by the excavators—a sub-rectangular shape, parallelogram-like cross-sec-tion, and bifacial flaking with fine and larger scars (see Figure 15: 5). So called “small handaxes” and “leaf-like forms” (ibid.: Figure 84-6) are made on flakes by partial bifacial flaking. As in the previ-ous assemblage (V), these tools are formal bifaces because of the bifacial flaking, but they are not Acheulian handaxes (see Figure 15: 2‒4, 6). To the contrary, they may be identified rather as bifacial side-scrapers or core-like bifaces.Among the 57 side-scrapers, simple side-scrapers (35)—often having massive natural backs (ibid.: Figure 84-7)—are common. There are also serial transversal, double, convergent (ibid.: Figure 84-5, 8), and angular side-scrapers (see Figure 14–6, 7). There are also a few side-scrapers with ends thinned by flat ventral retouch (see Figure 14: 2) and a typical limace (see Figure 14: 3).other flake tools include 17 end-scrapers (see Fig-ure 14: 4, 5), 8 “chisel-like tools” or “flat end-scrap-ers” (ibid.: 133)(see Figure 14: 9), 19 bec-like tools, one of which may be identified as a Tayacian point (see Figure 14: 8), 19 notches, 8 denticulates, and 20 composite tools.

Thus, from the techno-typological parameters, Assem-blage IV at Kudaro I is similar to the industry of Layer VI at Azykh. Like the latter, Assemblage IV is characterized by the following features:

Advanced flake technique based on parallel flak-ing (in Layer 5c in the dark gallery, about 54%

•

•

•

•

1.

of flakes have negatives of parallel or sub-paral-lel flaking from one-platform and 10-17% of the platforms are facetted);Among the tools, simple side-scrapers prevail, and many of them have natural backs, as well as the fact that there are a few side-scrapers with ends thinned by flat ventral retouch; A group of convergent tools that includes angu-lar and convergent side-scrapers, a denticulate Tayacian point, and a limace; Among macro-tools, along, with choppers, there are serial core-like scrapers or rabots; Acheulian bifaces are few, roughly flaked, and characterized by a combination of two types—a massive amygdaloid biface made on a boulder and a flat partial sub-cordiform biface made on a flake.

layers 5a–5b (the main Acheulian Assemblage III) at Kudaro IThe assemblage from layers 5а–5b has special significance for the characteristics of the Kudarian Acheulian at Kudaro I, as it is possible to treat this assemblage as the main por-tion of the Lower Paleolithic material rather than break-ing it into level-by-level assemblages. Inevitable errors in the attribution of some artifacts thus are less important compared to the opportunity to give an exhaustive de-scription—based on a really large lithic collection—of the Kudarian Acheulian at Kudaro I. Moreover, this approach allows one to make a comparative analysis of the two most representative assemblages of the Kudarian Acheulian—the earlier one (presumably dated to oIS 10) from Layer VI at Azykh Cave and the later one (dated to oIS 9) from Layers 5а–5b at Kudaro I.

Lithic finds from Layers 5а and 5b have not been sub-di-vided per each level in any of the excavation areas at Kuda-ro I. In the dark gallery, this industry was identified as “the third Acheulian level” (ibid.: 128), so it can be designated as Assemblage III. It includes 983 lithics from the eastern gallery where “the main bulk of finds was excavated in the top of the Acheulian layer” (Levels 5а and 5b in that area), while in the lowermost horizons (apparently, Level 5c) the finds were rare (ibid.: 41‒42). The same Acheulian Layers 5а–5c were excavated in the central chamber where, in the most dense excavation area near the western wall, “Acheu-lian layers lose their individual attributes … become an un-differentiated thickness of cemented loams” (ibid.: 83). This lithic collection from the central chamber numbers 2,268 ar-tifacts. In the dark gallery, 435 lithics were recovered from Layers 5a–5b, and 120 more lithics were found in the layers in the southern gallery (ibid.: 122, 128, 165). Thus, about 3,800 artifacts can be attributed to Layers 5а and 5b in total. This is approximately 65% of all the Lower Paleolithic finds at Kudaro I. Thus, this lithic industry can be called the main Acheulian assemblage at Kudaro I Cave.

The main Acheulian assemblage includes about 130 cores and core-like pieces, more than 2,500 flakes and flake fragments (including flake tools), about 650 small (<2.5cm)

2.

3.

4.

5.


Figure 15. Kudaro I Cave, Layer 5C (Assemblage IV): 1: proto-biface; 2‒4: bifacial side-scrapers; 5: amygdaloidal biface with broken tip; 6: core-like biface. Source of data: Liubin and Beliaeva (2004a).


flakes or chips, 45 pebble manuports and pebble retouch-ers–hammers, and about 850 tools (ibid.: 42, 47, 84, 88, 95, 122, 128, 131, 167, 175, 176). The industry is based on lo-cal poor quality raw-materials—mostly various slate, then sandstone, alevrolite, and poor quality flint or chert. The exploitation of transported high quality raw materials (ob-sidians, andesite, and colored flints was minimal—mostly for tool production, while cores from these non-local rocks are very rare.

Among the cores, there are one-platform cores with proto-prismatic flaking surfaces (ibid.: Figures 42, 43-5), double-platform (ibid.: Figure 17-3), multiplatform unifa-cial (ibid.: Figure 43-4) or bifacial (ibid.: Figure 65-1), and multiplatform orthogonal (ibid.: Figure 18-2) cores. A large group of core-like pieces includes pebbles or fragments with few flake scars, as well as small, heavy reduced and shapeless residual cores (ibid.: Figures 18-1, 43-1‒3). The prevalence of unidirectional parallel flaking is documented better on the dorsal surfaces of flakes. Unidirectional par-allel scars are observed on more than 50% of flakes, bidi-rectional crossed scars are 15–25%, bidirectional alterna-tive scars are 15–20%, and three- or four-directional scars are rare at 3–8%. Among complete flakes, laminar flakes comprise from 5% to 14% depending on raw material type. However, real blades with parallel or sub-parallel later-als are few and Levallois blanks are absent. Plain or cortex platforms prevail on flakes, fine faceted platforms are rare (5–8%), and prepared platforms comprise from 9% to 28% (the highest percentage being in flint flakes) (ibid.: 44- 46, 54, 84‒87, 125).

Tools are numerous and variable. Tool percentage var-ies from 20% of the total lithics in the eastern gallery and central chamber, and up to 30% in the dark gallery. The excavators identified the following tool types (ibid.: 47‒55, 88‒97, 128‒131, 175, 176):

Macro-tools made on pebbles, boulders, and frag-ments are not numerous. This tool group includes 15 choppers (ibid.: Figures 46, 75-2, 110-1), 3 chop-ping-tools (ibid.: Figures 20-1, 21), 7 core-like scrapers-rabots (ibid.: Figures 22-2‒4, 45), and two macro-tools with chisel-like ends (ibid.: Figure 110-1, 2).Bifacial tools include three amygdaloid handaxes (Figure 16: 2) made from sandstone (ibid.: Figures 25, 47-2); the best finished in the assemblage lan-ceolate biface made from silicified limestone (see Figure 16: 1); five flat partial sub-cordiform bifaces (Figure 17: 2, 3) made on slate flakes (ibid.: Figures 28-2, 30-1, 49-2), two flat partial double-pointed (naviforme) bifaces made on sandstone (see Figure 17: 1) and slate (ibid.: Figure 76-1) flakes, a sub-triangular handaxe made on a slate flake (ibid.: Figure 76-2), and a partial biface with natural back made on flat slate pebble (ibid.: Figure 30-2). All the other artifacts identified by the excavators as “hand axes,” “small handaxes,” and “leaf-like tools” often have amorphous outlines or heavily weathered surfaces. Some of these lithics should be

•

•

•

attributed only to a category of bifacial tools (ibid.: Figures 28-1, 29, 32-1, 4, 5, 49-1, 50-5, 7, 51-2) or core-like pieces (ibid.: Figures 32-6, 50-3). others can be identified as bifacial side-scrapers (ibid.: Fig-ures 50-6, 51-1, 77-1) and scrapers with ends (ibid.: Figures 31-1, 51-4) or backs (ibid.: Figures 31-2, 3, 32-2, 48-1) thinned by flat ventral retouch. Side-scrapers comprise the most numerous cat-egory of tools. They are manufactured from the best types of raw material—silicified slate or alev-rolite (57–62 %) and flint (12–22 %). They are made mostly by lateral retouch, while about one-third of side-scrapers are made by deep modifying, scalar (see Figure 14: 11) or stepped semi-Quina (see Fig-ure 14: 12) retouch. Abrupt, Quina (see Figure 14: 13), bifacial, and surelevée retouch is rare. Among side-scrapers, single scrapers prevail (80% of all scrapers), and about one-third of single scrapers have natural backs. They are mostly lateral, then transversal (ibid.: Figures 33-2,5; 34-4; 54-3,9; 56-1,4; 77-3,5,7) scrapers. Concave, ventral, and dou-ble scrapers are rare. A characteristic feature of the side-scrapers is ventral thinning of one (see Figure 14: 10, 16, 17) or both ends, and less often, a lat-eral side or a natural back (see Figure 14: 13). Liu-bin and Beliaeva (2004a:91) note that the thinning of ends with flat ventral retouch was mostly ap-plied to side-scrapers made on slate flakes. These single side-scrapers with ventral thinned ends (and frequently with natural backs) have relatively standardized morphology and are a diagnostic tool type in the main assemblage of the Kudarian Acheulian at Kudaro I.A convergent tool group is very small compared to the simple side-scrapers. It includes a few con-vergent (see Figure 14–15) or angular side-scrapers (Figure 14–20,23), four flint massive points (see see Figure 14–8,19), five Tayacian points (ibid.: Figure 52-5,8), a Quinson point (see Figure 14–14), and a few proto-limaces.Various end-scrapers are well-represented (see Figure 14: 21, 22), including few massive rounded end-scrapers (ibid.: Figure 78-8) and nosed end-scrapers (ibid.: Figure 78-3, 4, 6). Notched (ibid.: Figures 57-11, 12, 79-1), bec-like (ibid.: Figures 36-11, 58-4; 79-6, 10), denticulate, chisel-like tools with flat ventral retouch (ibid.: Figures 37-5, 7, 8; 38-3, 39-1, 60-6), and multiple tools are variable in their presence.Bifacial knives of tsaldi type are represented by one almost complete tool made on a very thin slate slab (Figure 18: 3) and three fragments (see Figure 18: 1, 2).

Thus, the main Acheulian assemblage at Kudaro I is characterized by the following features typical of the Kudarian Acheulian variant:

Flake technique based on parallel flaking (flakes with unidirectional parallel or convergent scars

•

•

•

•

1.


on dorsal surfaces comprise 45–60% of all flakes depending on raw material) and prepared by one scar or natural flaking platforms (flakes with plain or natural platforms comprise 60–80% of all flakes). Real blades or flakes with fine faceted platforms are rare, and Levallois blanks are ab-sent.

Absolute prevalence of small flake tools (about 90% of all tools). Among them, side-scrapers com-prise about half of all tools, and single scrapers comprise about 90% of all side-scrapers. Among the side-scrapers, a diagnostic for the Kudar-ian Acheulian is a simple scraper with an end thinned with flat ventral retouch and often with

2.

Figure 16. Kudaro I Cave, Layers 5A‒5B (Assemblage III): 1: lageniform biface; 2: amygdaloidal biface. Source of data: Liubin and Beliaeva (2004a).


Figure 17. Kudaro I Cave, Layers 5A‒5B (Assemblage III). Partial bifaces made on flakes. Source of data: Liubin and Beliaeva (2004a).


Figure 18. Bifacial knives of tsaldi type and their fragments: 1‒3: Kudaro I Cave, Layers 5A‒5B (Assemblage III); 4: Tsona Cave. Sources of data: Liubin (1998a) and Liubin and Beliaeva (2004a).


a natural back. This scraper type is not found at Treugol’naya Cave.Among other flake tools, there are numerous notched, bec-like and denticulate tools, and also various end-scrapers (ibid.: 55, 95‒97).Convergent tools are quite variable—convergent and angular side-scrapers, massive points, Taya-cian or Quinson points, and proto-limaces.Macro-tools are not numerous. Core-like scrap-ers-rabots represent a specific type for the Kudar-ian Achiulean macro-tools At Treugol’naya Cave, only one tool of this type was found.Acheulian bifaces form a small, but typologically very distinctive and diagnostic tool group. This group is characterized by a combination of two main biface types—amygdaloid and then lanceo-late massive handaxes, and flat sub-cordiform partial bifaces made on flakes. In adidition to these biface groups, partial double-pointed (navi-forme) bifaces made on flakes and partial backed bifaces are represented.Bifacial knives of tsaldi type are a characteristic but extremely rare tool type.

Lenses R and R1 (Assemblage II) at Kudaro I This small assemblage (52 lithics including 12 tools) was identified as “the second Acheulian level” only in the dark gallery at Kudaro I. The assemblage consists of finds rede-posited from Acheulian Layers 5a–5b and the top part of Layer 5c (ibid.: 128) and consequently has no independent cultural-chronological meaning.

lenses Х1–3 (Assemblage I) at Kudaro IThe latest Acheulian Assemblage I, or “the top Acheulian level” at Kudaro I Cave also was found only in the dark gal-lery. As this assemblage consists of artifacts, found in ero-sional lenses and, probably includes an admixture of mate-rials from Mousterian Layer 4 and the top Acheulian Layer 5a (ibid.: 120, 126), an independent cultural–chronological meaning for the assemblage is not obvious. Nevertheless, some typological features of this collection can be used to understand aspects of the final stage of the Kudarian Achi-ulean at Kudaro I Cave. Assemblage I consists of 238 lithics including 81 tools (34% of all finds). The tools include:

Acheulian handaxes made from slate, including an elongated lageniform biface with a transversal dis-tal extremity (Figure 19: 3), a partial sub-cordiform biface made on a split pebble (ibid.: Figure 68), two partial sub-cordiform bifaces made on flakes (Fig-ure 19: 1), and one biface with a transversal end made on a flake (Figure 19: 2); Convergent tools such as a massive point similar to pointe surelevee (ibid.: Figure 71-1), two Mousterian points (probably introduced from the upper Mous-terian levels [ibid.: Figure 71-2, 6]), two Quinson points, and a convergent side-scraper;Side-scrapers, mostly single lateral or transversal (ibid.: Figure 71-5, 7, 9); there is one bifacial side-

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

•

•

•

scraper (ibid.: Figure 71-3); and,other flake tools including various end-scrapers, notched, denticulate, becs, and composite tools.

One can note the absence of all diagnostic Kudarian Acheulian tool types in this top Acheulian assemblage at Kudaro I—pointed bifaces of amygdaloid or lanceolate forms, core-like scrapers–rabots, side-scrapers with ends thinned with ventral retouch, and knives of tsaldi type. Moreover, Acheulian bifaces in Assemblage I differ from bifaces of the main assemblage in the cave—all of them are flat bifaces, mostly made on flakes, and have partly bifacial retouch; there are two bifaces with transversal extremities that are unknown in the earlier assemblages at Kudaro I or Layer VI at Azykh.

As noted above, a lageniform biface made on sand-stone boulder was found in the top Acheulian Layer 5 at Kudaro III, likewise a numerically small lithic industry that does not have most of tool types diagnostic for the Kudar-ian Acheulian. One can explain these discrepancies as be-ing due to the small numbers of tools in the top assemblage at Kudaro I and at Kudaro III. on the other hand, the ab-sence of massive biface types (amygdaloid or lanceolate), characteristic for the earlier Acheulian layers at Kudaro I, and the appearance of a new type (flat bifaces with trans-versal ends) are both correlated with the later age of the top assemblage at Kudaro I and Layer 5 at Kudaro III. In addi-tion, the author has noted one more tendency—a gradual increase in the Acheulian biface proportion per total lithics. In the earliest assemblage from Layer VI at Azykh Cave, for example, this ratio is about 1:2,000; in Layers 5c and 5a–5b at Kudaro I, this ratio is, respectively, 1:350 and 1:300. In the latest Acheulian Assemblage I at Kudaro I, the proportion is about 1:50 (in Layer 5 at Kudaro III, it is 1:35). These data might be interpreted as obvious progress in the develop-ment of Acheulian biface technology. This is supported by the fact that the best-made Acheulian handaxes are found only in the main assemblage from Layers 5a–5b and in the latest assemblage from Lenses X1–3 at Kudaro I, while the most perfectly made flat Acheulian bifaces are present only in the latest of these assemblages. At Kudaro I, two more trends in the development of the Kudarian Acheulian are noted by the excavators (ibid.: 97, 134, 167):

A gradual transition from a raw material type (slate) that is easier to flake (55% of all lithics in Layer 5c in the dark gallery) to more dense sand-stones (from 29% in Layer 5c up to 37–39% in Layers 5a–5b and Lenses X1–3 in the dark gallery). A similar trend can be shown in the southern gal-lery (data on flakes only)—slate flakes comprise 52% of all flakes in the lowermost levels 5d–5f, in Layer 5c they are about 59%, and in Layers 5a–5b, about 42%. In contrast, sandstone flakes comprise about 30–36% of all flakes in Layers 5d–5f and 5c, and up to 51% in Layers 5a–5b; and,A significant number of side-scrapers with ends thinned by ventral retouch only in the upper Acheulian Layers 5a–5b. In the earlier layers (Layer VI at Azykh and Layer 5c at Kudaro I),

•

1.

2.


Figure 19. Kudaro I Cave, Lenses X1‒3 (Assemblage I). Partial bifaces made on flakes. Source of data: Liubin and Beliaeva (2004a).


these side-scrapers are few, while at Treugol’naya Cave, they are absent.

The Acheulian Assemblage from layer v at Azykh �aveThe problems with the materials from Azykh Cave due to poor quality excavation are considered fully by Liubin (1998а). Uncertainty of chronological position of the lay-er has resulted, in the estimation of Liubin and Beliaeva (2004а: 250), in “Acheulean Layer V as possibly dating to the later Middle Pleistocene … or even the beginning of Upper Pleistocene.” In the entrance part of the cave, Layer V had the greatest thickness (up to 5m) and was subdivid-ed into 5–7 lithological levels. Based on the palynological data, the main part of this layer was formed during a cold period which witnessed a shrinking of the extent of vegeta-tion belts. At that time, the cave was located near the upper border of forest belt, represented mostly by hop hornbeam, birch, and sub-alpine meadows (Liubin 1998а: 24).

The archaeological material, found in Layer V over an excavated area of almost 200m2, is very insignificant—only 289 lithics, the majority of which were recovered from the middle levels of this layer. Among the artifacts, Liubin and Beliaeva (2004а: 252) identified 204 flakes and blades, 13 cores and core-like fragments, 39 flake tools, and 19 macro-tools. Similar to the Acheulian sequence at Kudaro I, there is a tendency toward an increase in denser rocks (flint at Azykh) in the upper levels compared to the use of slate. In Layer V, almost 50% of the artifacts are made from flint compared to 42% in Layer VI. Layer V at Azykh, in con-trast to the Acheulian material at Kudaro I exhibits a higher blade index—17.6% versus 5–14% depending on the raw material used in the main assemblage at Kudaro I. These distinctions appear to be due to the prevalence of the better flint raw material at Azykh (at Kudaro I, better quality raw material does not exceed 9–12.5%).

In Layer V at Azykh, macro-tools include 10–12 chop-pers and chopping-tools. Of the seven Acheulian bifaces identified in this assemblage, five are published. All of them are made of silicified slate. Massive bifaces include three of the best bifacially flaked elongated lanceolate han-daxes (two of which were broken during the excavation) and one elongated amygdaloid handaxe with partial bi-facial trimming (Figure 20: 4). Flat bifaces are represented by one elongated cordiform handaxe, which is made on a large flake and has narrow transversal edge (see Figure 20: 3). Two bifaces with natural backs were made on flat peb-bles by partial bifacial flaking. Flake tools consist mainly of side-scrapers (n=26), then end-scrapers (n=4), and den-ticulates (n=3). Also, a demi-Quina side-scraper with a back thinned with flat ventral retouch (see Figure 20: 2) and a backed side-scraper with a base thinned with flat ventral retouch (see Figure 20: 1) were found.

Thus, although the lithic assemblage from Layer V at Azykh Cave seems not to be a homogeneous archaeologi-cal assemblage, especially taking into account the great thickness of this layer and the poor quality excavation of it—admixture of lithics from the Mousterian layers is pos-sible—one can note the following features that suggest this

assemblage belongs to the Kudarian Upper Acheulian vari-ant:

a flake knapping technique with parallel flaking from roughly prepared platforms;prevalence of small flake tools, especially side-scrapers, and the occurrence among the latter of characteristic Kudarian Acheulian side-scraper types with ventral thinning; among macro-tools, backed bifaces made on flat pebbles by partial bifacial flaking. This tool type is known also from Kudaro I and Layer VI at Azykh; and, Acheulian bifaces characterized by the diagnostic Kudarian variant combination of amygdaloid or lanceolate massive bifaces and flat sub-cordiform partial bifaces made on flakes.

At the same time, features such as the absence of core-like end-scrapers-rabots, presence of a flat biface with a transversal end, and rarity of side-scrapers with ventral thinned ends, in combination with a high ratio of bifaces to all lithics (in Layer V, about 1:40) place the assemblage from Layer V at Azykh together with the latest Acheulian assem-blage from Lenses X1–3 at Kudaro I. These similar typologi-cal characteristics allow one to assume a similarity in age for both assemblages. However, as noted above, a strong climate cooling was identified in Layer V at Azykh. This event may be correlated best with the cold oIS 8. Thus, in considering the typological features and paleo-geographi-cal data, one can assume a chronological position for the Acheulian assemblage from Layer V at Azykh Cave be-tween the main assemblage from Layers 5a–5b at Kudaro I (oIS 9) and the assemblages from Lenses X1–3 at Kudaro I and the Acheulian layers at Kudaro III (see Table 3).

The Acheulian Assemblage at Tsona �aveTsona Cave is located in a sub-alpine zone at an elevation of 2100–2150masl. This is the highest Lower Paleolithic site in the Caucasus. As Liubin and Beliaeva (2004а: 260) note, the quality of the excavation at this cave was as poor as that at Azykh Cave. Nevertheless, there are several dis-tinctions. Although the excavation area at Tsona Cave was about 140m2 (the total cave area is about 1000m2), and the total thickness of the Lower Paleolithic strata exceeded 2m, only 134 stone artifacts were found. Moreover, about two-thirds of the artifacts were found within the eastern half of the entrance area, outside a modern drip line and in the adjoining area under the cave roof, while only a few lithics were found in the cave interior. At the same time, the Low-er Paleolithic layers yielded about 7,000 animal bones, with 92% of them identified as cave bear (Liubin 1998а). These data clearly show that, similar to Kudaro III, the Acheulian material from Tsona Cave reflects sporadic human visits to this cave site.

Based on the pollen data, the Lower Paleolithic occupa-tion at Tsona Cave occurred during a significant warming of the climate. During the accumulation of the main part of the Lower Paleolithic layers, the cave was surrounded by mixed coniferous and broad leaf woods comprised of pine,

1.

2.

3.

4.


Figure 20. Azykh Cave, Layer V: 1: backed side-scraper with a base thinned with flat ventral retouch; 2: demi-Quina side-scraper with a back thinned with flat ventral retouch; 3: elongated cordiform biface made on a flake; 4: elongated amygdaloidal biface. Source of data: Liubin (1998a).


fir, beech, alder, and other coniferous or deciduous trees, while during the final stages, the setting was characterized by proximity to the upper border of the forest belt repre-sented mostly by hop hornbeam forests (ibid.). These data allow correlation of the main part of the Lower Paleolithic strata at Tsona Cave to a warm oxygen-isotope stage.

At Tsona Cave, two Acheulian layers were identified, each of which included several strata. This subdivision into layers has no meaning, as layer nomenclature, as well as the number of layers or strata within them varied during the excavations. Principally, all the lithic finds can be con-sidered one assemblage, especially due to the small total number of artifacts. As at Azykh Cave, Liubin (1998а) pro-vides the most complete critical analysis and description of the material from Tsona Cave.

In the lower layer at Tsona, only 30 small flakes and flake tools (side-scrapers, end-scrapers, and a limace) were found. Mostly tools and a few flakes represent the inven-tory of the upper layer, totally 104 stone artifacts. Waste products of flaking are not present. Among the flake tools, only a few side-scrapers, a limace, and a denticulate tool were identified (Liubin 1998а: Figures 58-1, 2, 59-5‒6; Liu-bin and Beliaeva 2004а: 260‒261; Figure 142-2). No chop-pers or core-like end-scrapers were found, but Acheulian bifaces and biface fragments comprise a large assortment. Macro-tools include three cleavers on flakes (Liubin 1998а: Figures 51-2, 52-3, 58-5) and two knives of tsaldy type (see Figure 18: 4). Based on the published tool figures, one can conclude that the collection also includes typologically unidentifiable tool fragments or reutilized tools, some of which are reminiscent of core-like bifaces or side-scrapers made from residual cores (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: Fig-ure 14).

The category of Acheulian bifaces includes at least 18 pieces. For comparison, the excavator of the cave, Tushab-ramishvili (1984), reported 47 handaxes in the industry, but published only five of them. Liubin (1998а) identified 10 cleavers (among them, 2–3 flake cleavers) and 29 handaxes (including 10 biface fragments) and published figures for 20 bifacial tools. The assortment of bifacial tools at Tsona sharply differs from that characteristic of the Kudarian Acheulian. The following biface types were identified:

four bifaces with a transversal edge or biface cleav-ers (ibid.: Figures 50, 52-2, 53-2), two of them are made on flakes (Figure 21: 2); two sub-cordiform bifaces (ibid.: Figures 51-1, 58-3) including a partial biface with an unworked base; a sub-triangular biface (ibid.: Figure 54-2);three sub-triangular bifaces (see Figure 21: 1) with plano-convex bifacial retouch (ibid.: Figures 52-4, 54-1, 59-7);two triangular bifaces with plano-convex bifacial retouch (ibid.: Figures 55-2, 56-1);an oval biface (ibid.: Figure 55-1);an amygdaloid biface (ibid.: Figure 53-1);a backed biface (ibid.: Figure 57-1); and,three biface fragments (ibid.: Figure 57-1-3).

Such a large variety of Acheulian bifaces, as well as an

•

•

••

•

••••

extremely high ratio of total bifaces per total lithics (more than 1:5 in the upper layer at Tsona) cannot be easily ex-plained. Whether it is due to an economic/activity focus of the Acheulian occupations in the cave (short-term hunt-ing camps?) or to “negligent excavations that have caused losses of a part of the material: in 1961 even hand axes were found in the backdirt” (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а: 260) or to an extreme phase of the chronological trend noted above—an increase in biface proportion from the earlier to later Acheulian assemblages—is not certain. Obviously, only future high-quality excavation at this site can clarify these issues.

The hypothesis that Tsona “could serve as a hunting camp for the Acheulian inhabitants of Kudaro I Cave” (ibid.: 261) cannot be accepted any longer, as this idea is in conflict with the more advanced typology of the Acheulian bifaces from Tsona. The presence at Tsona of two knives of tsaldi type, which are known also at Kudaro I, is not suffi-cient basis for the conclusion that – these finds are—“a rare case of an opportunity to judge confidently the cultural and chronological similarity…of these cave sites” (ibid.). First, there are substantial typological (and chronological) distinctions between these Acheulian industries. Second, finds of tsaldi type tools are known outside the Caucasus, for example, in the Acheulian industry at Meshkhed III in Southern Arabia (Amirkhanov 2006: Figure 73-1). Third, the poor quality excavation at Tsona Cave does not exclude admixture of archaeological materials of various Acheulian industry types (for example, Kudarian Acheulian and a later Acheulian variant).

The cave excavators, Kalandadze and D. Tushabra-mishvili, were at a loss to determine the geological age of the Lower Paleolithic at Tsona Cave. They dated this in-dustry to the end or second half of the Acheulian (Kalan-dadze 1965) or from Riss-Wurm to an inter-Riss interstadial (Tushabramishvili 1984). The author believes that the age of the Acheulian assemblage from Tsona is within oIS 7 and is supported by the paleo-geographical data (see Table 3) and a developed biface typology. Such features as the absence of core-like end-scrapers (rabots) and side-scrapers with ends thinned with ventral retouch, and the presence of bi-faces with transversal edges (or biface cleavers), in combi-nation with the high ratio of bifaces to total lithics, place the Acheulian material from Tsona Cave with the latest Acheu-lian assemblages from Lenses X1–3 at Kudaro I and Layer 5 at Kudaro III. The close typological similarities allow one to assume an age similarity for all these assemblages. At the same time, biface cleavers (see Figure 21: 2) and sub-trian-gular and triangular handaxes with plano-convex retouch (see Figure 21: 1) are found only at Tsona.

Thus, the high biface proportion (from 20% up to 40% of all lithics, depending on the researcher), the most ad-vanced biface composition (prevalence of flat sub-triangu-lar or sub-cordiform handaxes), and technology (plano-convex technique) indicate that the Acheulian assemblage from Tsona appears to have the youngest age among the stratified Acheulian assemblages in the Caucasus. The paleo-geographical data suggest a chronological position


Figure 21. Tsona Cave: 1: sub-triangular biface with plane-convex retouch; 2: biface cleaver. Source of data: Liubin (1998a).


within the end of oIS 7 (see Table 3) for the Acheulian at Tsona.

A�HEulIAN TE�HNo-�oMPlEx IN THE CAUCASUS: CONCLUSIONSThe stratified assemblages considered above do not exhaust the Acheulian industries in the Caucasus. In the Southern Caucasus, Acheulian sites are divided into two groups (or industrial variants):

Based on lava raw materials, the Acheulian in-dustries from locations in volcanic uplands in Southern Georgia and Armenia form an original “enclave” of the Upper Acheulian assemblages limited to between the upper Kura River and the Araks River (Liubin 1998а: Figure 1). Basalt bifaces are known to the south as separate finds (in northern Iran [Liubin 1984: 68]), to the west (in the Kars–Trabzon area in northeastern Tur-key [Taskiran 1998: 571]), and to the north (on the southern slope of the Great Caucasus [Liubin 1998а]). In Armenia and Southern Georgia, the following common features characterize these Acheulian industries (Doronichev 2004; Do-ronichev and Golovanova 2003; Liubin 1998а): а) developed blade (Levallois) flaking technique) developed blade (Levallois) flaking technique together with radial flaked cores, with a highly variable blade index and flakes mostly used for tool production; b) Acheulian bifaces frequently comprise a high percentage of tools (in some locations, up to 50%). Among them, flat bifaces (sub-cordiform, oval, and triangular) prevail, and thick bifaces (amygdaloid or lanceolate) are less well represented. Reduction in biface size (to “small handaxes”) and biface manufacture on flakes with partial, sometimes plano-convex preparation occurs in typologically later assem-blages; and,Acheulian assemblages based on sedimentary rocks are found at the cave sites of Kudaro I, Kudaro III, Tsona, and Azykh. Here, the author has offered a definition of this industry group (except for Tsona) as the Kudarian variant of Up-per Acheulian or Kudarian. Obviously, further research will refine this definition, as well as pro-vide detail of chronological distinctions among the Acheulian industries. As separate finds, Acheulian bifaces from silicified rocks are found on the Imeretian Plateau in Western Georgia and along the Caucasian Black Sea coast (northwest-ward up to the Cape of Kadosh near Tuapse). In the Northern Caucasus, only a few bifaces of Upper Acheulian types are found (Liubin 1998а: Figure 92-2). The most representative Acheulian assemblages of Kudarian variant are from Kud-aro I Cave and Layer VI at Azykh Cave. These have the following features (Doronichev 2004; Liubin 1984): а) flake flaking technique; b) highа) flake flaking technique; b) high) flake flaking technique; b) high

1.

2.

frequency of retouched tools, and among them, a prevalence of simple side-scrapers; c) very low (less than 1%) representation of bifacial tools, es-pecially classical Acheulian handaxes, which are represented mostly by amygdaloid or lanceolate massive bifaces and flat sub-cordiform bifaces made on flakes.

Generally, the available chronological data document a late age for the Acheulian in the Southern Caucasus, com-parable to the Upper Acheulian or Acheulo-Yabrudian in the Levant. Absolute dates (see Table 3) indicate that the age of the Kudarian Acheulian industries falls between 350 and 200kyr in the Kudarian caves. Likewise, the earliest Lower Paleolithic finds on the Caucasian Black Sea coast (from the fifth sea terrace at the Yashtukh location in Abkhazia) have a TL-date of 358–330kyr bp (Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а). There are a few Acheulian handaxe surface finds along the Black Sea coast in the Caucasus “including Yashtukh ones that have an Upper Acheulian shape” (ibid.: 229), as well as in Western Georgia where “only rare Acheulian bifaces of a late type occur” (Liubin 1998а: 7). The data for age determi-nation of the Acheulian locations in the Little Caucasus is very limited. Typologically they are defined mostly as the Upper Acheulian of Levallois facies (Liubin 1989: 92) or the Final Acheulian, as at Satani-dar (Liubin 1984; Matiukhin 2001), Arzni (Liubin 1998а), and Atis I (Kazarian 1986).

Apparently, the two groups of Acheulian indus-tries represent independent cultural traditions within the Acheulian. Besides distinctions noted in raw-material preferences, flaking techniques, and biface typology, re-searchers have argued for independent development of the Acheulian in Armenia (Eritsian 1972) or noted that no flint handaxes were found in Armenia or Southern Georgia (Kikodze 1986). The lava-based Acheulian industries of the Little Caucasus, containing plenty of Acheulian bifaces (by rough calculations, more than 700), appear quite possibly to be the “top of the iceberg” of the Upper Acheulian in Western Asia—the nearest region where Acheulian assem-blages with numerous bifaces are known. Regarding the lava-based Acheulian assemblages of the Southern Cauca-sus, the available data appear to confirm a hypothesis of Liubin and Beliaeva (2004а: 265) that for the “roots of the Caucasian Acheulian, certainly, it is necessary to search in the Near East.”

On the contrary, the Acheulian industries with rare typical Acheulian handaxes from cave sites in the Southern Caucasus appear to have a different origin. The data, syn-thesized by the author, point to the later age of the Acheu-lian in caves compared to Treugol’naya Cave (see Table 3) and the increase of handaxe production, and expansion of biface typology and technology. On this basis, the author previously offered a hypothesis that the basis for the origin of the Kudarian Acheulian would be found in the earlier Lower Paleolithic assemblages without Acheulian bifaces, such as Treugol’naya Cave (Doronichev 2004).

This hypothesis is similar to a common tendency in the interpretation of distinctions between the industries of the Acheulian techno-complex and the Lower Paleolithic in-


dustries with small flake tools and without Acheulian han-daxe technology. It is now noted (Burdukiewicz and Ronen 2003) that these small tool assemblages, differently defined by researchers, are widely spread from Western Europe to China from about 1.0 million years ago. In some regions (e.g., East Germany and Poland), the small tool industries precede the Acheulian, or coexist with it (as in Western Europe and Israel), or develop independently during the entire Lower Paleolithic (China). For example, in Britain a long discussion about the chronological and industrial re-lationship between Clactonian and Acheulian industries has resulted in a compromise approach. On the one hand, it is admitted that Clactonian industries preceded the ap-pearance of the Acheulian in the southeast of England in the second half of the Hoxnian interstadial. On the other hand, “the long-established orthodoxy that the Clactonian and the Acheulean are the industrial traditions of two sepa-rate groups has also been rejected in favor of an explana-tion which involves technological change within a hominid population network over a long period of time in response ultimately to changing raw material availability” (Wenban-Smith 1998: 96).

CONCLUSIONS

THE AgE AND ROUTES Of THE LOwER PALEO-LITHIC OCCUPATION Of EASTERN EUROPEPrior to twenty years ago, different authoritative scholars (see [Gladilin 1976] for cited references) hypothesized about human settlement of the Russian Plain as occurring by the Early–beginning of the Middle Pleistocene, and about the leading role of the Caucasus or Central Europe in the initial hominine occupation of Eastern Europe. Today, all these ideas have been shown to have no factual basis. Although humans first appeared in the Southern Caucasus (Dmanisi) by 1.7Ma, in the Northern Caucasus, the earliest human occupation is currently dated to 600kyr (Assemblage IV at Treugol’naya Cave). In the Russian Plain, human occupa-tion is now documented no earlier than 300kyr ago (the al-luvial assemblage at Khryashchy?). Moreover, the earliest Lower Paleolithic sites on the western borders of Eastern Europe (Korolevo I, Layer VI at Ukraine and, probably, Pogreby and Dubossary in Moldova) are dated no earlier than 400kyr ago. Thus, current data indicate, first, a quite late (the middle of Middle Pleistocene) time for the initial human settlement of the southern areas of Eastern Europe; and, second, approximately the same age for the first hu-man appearance as in the southern and western areas of the East European plain. Moreover, all these earliest human oc-cupations are located near the southern or western bound-aries of Eastern Europe and, probably, outline the limits of Lower Paleolithic occupation of neighboring regions. East-ern Europe proper appears outside these boundaries.

The beginning of a large-scale human settlement of Eastern Europe is shown by current archaeological data only by the end of Lower–beginning of the Middle Paleo-lithic, or from about 200kyr. Probably, it was primarily

caused by human migration from Central Europe. This pro-cess appears to be marked by the distribution of industries with bifacial leaf points or foliates (Kozlowski 2003) in the southern zone of Eastern Europe, which are characteristic in Central Europe for the end of Lower–beginning of Mid-dle Paleolithic. The leaf point industries penetrated also to the Caucasus (Doronichev 2004). It is supposed (Hoffecker 2002: 3; Hublin 1998) that the first people who began the widespread colonization of the East European plain were Neanderthals adapted to cold climate. This hypothesis hy-pothesis cannot be confirmed as there are no anthropologi-cal finds in the earlier sites with leaf points. However, in the later sites of this industrial complex in Central Europe, Neanderthal finds are known at sites of the Taubachian variant dated to early oIS 5—a travertine endocranium cast from Ganovce and teeth from Taubach.

ACHEULIAN DISTRIBUTION IN THE CAUCA-SUSContrary to a widespread view that during the Lower Pa-leolithic the Caucasus was a region of mostly Acheulian in-dustries (Liubin 1998а; Liubin and Beliaeva 2004а), the data summarized in this paper show the late—in comparison to Western Asia—appearance of the Acheulian techno–com-plex in the Caucasus. In the Southern Caucasus, the ear-liest Acheulian industries are dated to the second half of the Middle Pleistocene or no older than 350kyr. Recently Liubin and Beliaeva (2004а: 265) also have agreed “that penetration of the Levantine Acheulian into the Caucasus occurred no earlier than the middle of Middle Pleistocene.” Certainly, this does not exclude an opportunity of future discoveries of earlier Acheulian sites, especially in the Little Caucasus.

Mapping of handaxe finds shows the Acheulian distri-bution in the Caucasus. It indicates their concentration in the southern limit of the Caucasus or in the Little Caucasus (Liubin 1998а: 23‒24). outside the Little Caucasus, a con-centration of Acheulian assemblages (including the cave sites of Kudaro I, Kudaro III, and Tsona) occurs in the Cen-tral Southern Caucasus, where about 150 Acheulian bifac-es were found (ibid.). The Acheulian penetration into the Northern Caucasus and the Black Sea coast in the Western Caucasus is documented by only a few Acheulian bifaces. Thus, the Acheulian techno-complex distribution is limited to the Little Caucasus and the Central Southern Caucasus.

Liubin (ibid.) attributes this restriction to natural fac-tors—the mountain barrier of the Great Caucasus in the north, the boggy and forested Kolhic lowland in Western Georgia, and flooded (by the Caspian Sea) Kura lowland in the Eastern Southern Caucasus. In his opinion, these natu-ral barriers prevented colonization of the Northern Cauca-sus by bearers of the Acheulian biface industries who mi-grated from the Levant. The idea of natural barriers is not new and is attractive by virtue of its simplicity. However, it does not explain why some natural barriers limited distri-bution of the Acheulian biface technology while others, no less significant, did not.

The author’s analysis of the Lower Paleolithic indus-


tries in this paper allows proposal of a complex concept of the origin of the Acheulian and its distribution in the Caucasus. This concept suggests different origins (migra-tion for lava-based Upper Acheulian assemblages and lo-cal evolution for Kudarian Acheulian) for the Acheulian assemblages in the Southern Caucasus and a large cultural area across Eastern and Central Europe, where Acheulian handaxe technology was not known throughout much of the Lower Paleolithic and the first bifaces appeared at the end of the Lower Paleolithic or in the beginning of Middle Paleolithic. A cultural peculiarity of Central and Eastern Europe is that the biface technology developed here as a technology of bifacial leaf point production, and the most distinctive bifaces are bifacial foliates. Moreover, most of leaf point assemblages in Central and Eastern Europe, in-cluding the Northern Caucasus, are dated to the end of the Middle Pleistocene. The author believes that the appearance of bifacial leaf point technology demarcates a chronological boundary between the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, and hence assemblages with leaf points earlier attributed to the Lower Paleolithic have to be redefined as Middle Paleolith-ic. Likewise in Central Europe, the industries with Acheu-lian bifaces, leaf points, and Levallois technique, earlier as-signed to the Later Acheulian, are currently attributed to the Middle Paleolithic (Bosinski 2001).

THE lowEr PAlEolITHI� NoN-bIfA�E IN-DuSTrIES AND THE “MovIuS lINE”The Lower Paleolithic stratified sites (Dmanisi and Treugol’naya Cave) document that it is not the Acheulian Complex but industries without Acheulian bifaces that con-stitute the main cultural horizon of the Lower Paleolithic in the Caucasus. This horizon now is documented with the first human appearance in the Caucasus at about 1.7Ma (Dmanisi) up until the middle of Middle Pleistocene about 350–400kyr (Treugol’naya Cave). The earliest assemblage at Dmanisi now is identified as a Pre-oldowan pebble-tool industry (H. de Lumley et al. 2005). The later industries without Acheulian bifaces from Treugol’naya Cave are pro-posed to be the Pre-Mousterian (Tayacian) Complex (Do-ronichev 2004). Moreover, the analysis (discussed above) of stratified Acheulian assemblages allows one to assume that the Lower Paleolithic assemblages without bifaces are the basis for the origin of the Kudarian variant of the Upper Acheulian in the Southern Caucasus.

Like the Caucasus, industries without Acheulian bifaces are known in the Early–first half of the Middle Pleistocene in Central Europe. In Eastern Europe, the Pre-Mousterian industries exist until the end of the Middle Pleistocene. The distinctiveness of the Lower Paleolithic of the Alps–Cau-casian zone was noted by Obermaier (1925) and later in-troduced in the “Movius Line” concept. According to this concept, a border of maximal distribution of the Acheulian techno-complex in Western Asia occurs along the Great Caucasus Ridge (see Figure 11). In Eurasia, this border sep-arates two extensive Lower Paleolithic cultural provinces, one of which represents the development of the Acheu-

lian handaxe technology, and, the other, techniques of tool manufacturing on flakes or pebbles (Bordes 1968: Figure 47; Klein 1989: Figure 4.11; Kozlowski 2003: Figure 7.1). It is obvious that “Movius Line” is not a concrete line on a map like a country border. This is confirmed by a few finds of Acheulian bifaces in Western Central Europe (Bosinski 1995), the Balkans (Darlas 1995), Anatolia (Taskiran 1998), and the Northern Caucasus (Liubin 1998a; 2002).

Although the data now available are limited, they allow one to hypothesize that the Acheulian expansion to Eastern Europe through the Caucasus did not occur. This is because, first, the appearance of the Acheulian biface technology in the Southern Caucasus is late (after 300kyr ago); and, sec-ond, there is a quite early (after 200kyr ago) and relatively fast, widespread dispersion across Central and Eastern Eu-rope of bifacial leaf point industries, probably introduced by Neanderthals. A clearer explanation why the Acheulian did not spread far into Central or Eastern Europe requires new finds and further scientific analysis of the large Lower Paleolithic cultural areas that are demarcated geographi-cally by the Movius Line, their probable interactions, logics of internal development, and an appraisal of the industrial variability at various chronological periods.

A�KNowlEDgMENTS The author expresses gratitude to the Leakey Foundation (USA) and the Ministry of Culture and Inspection for the Protection of Historical Monuments of the Karachaevo-Cherkessian Republic for financial and other support of excavations at Treugol’naya Cave. I thank the Fulbright Program (USA), Sores Foundation (USA), and INTAS Pro-gram (Belgium) for grant support of my research. I am very grateful to o. Bar-Yosef, H. Dibble, H. de Lumley, and J.-J. Hublin for the opportunity for comparative study of Lower Paleolithic collections, useful discussions, and support. I thank D. Lordkipanidze, M. Nioradze, and A. Dzhafarov for access to the Lower Paleolithic collections in Georgia and Azerbaijan. I want to thank especially L. Golovanova for reviewing the manuscript and useful remarks and D. Olszewski for editing the English in the paper.

REfERENCESAitken, M., and Stokes, S. 1997. Climatostratigraphy. In:

Taylor, R.E. and Aitken, M.J. (Eds.), Chronometric Dat-ing in Archaeology, New York, pp. 1–30.

Amirkhanov, H.A. 2006. Paleolithic of the South of Arabia, Moscow (in Russian).

Amirkhanov, H.A. and Derevianko, A.P. 2004. Surveys of the Stone Age in Dagestan in 2003. Herald of Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography 1 (in Russian).

Anisjutkin, N.K. 1987. A new Early Paleolithic location near Pogreby in the Middle Dnestr. In: Moldavian Podnestro-vie in the primitive epoch, Kishinev, pp. 4–15 (in Rus-sian).

Anisjutkin, N.K. 1992. Early and Middle Paleolithic of the South-west of European part of USSR. Ph.D. Dissertation,


St. Petersburg (in Russian).Bar-Yosef, o. 1995. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the

Mediterranean Levant: Chronology, and cultural enti-ties. In: Ullrich, H. (Ed.), Man and environment in the Pa-leolithic, ERAUL 62, pp. 247–263.

Bar-Yosef, O. 1998. Early colonizations and cultural con-tinuities in the Lower Paleolithic of western Asia. In: Petraglia, M.D. and Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Early Human Behaviour in Global Context: The rise and diversity of the Lower Paleolithic record, London – New York, pp. 221–279.

Bar-Yosef, О. and Goren-Inbar, N. 1993. The Lithic Assem-blages of ‘Ubeidiya: a lower palaeolithic site in the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem.

Baryshnikov, G.F. 1993. Large mammals of the Acheulean occupation in Treugol’naya cave in the Northern Cau-casus. Works of Zoological institute RAN 249, 3–47 (in Russian).

Baryshnikov, G.F. 2002. Local biochronology of Middle and Late Pleistocene Mammals from the Caucasus. Russian Journal of Theriology 1, 61–67 (in Russian).

Baryshnikov, G.F. and Potapova, O. 1995. Pleistocene birds from the Acheulian site of Treugolnaya Cave in the Northern Caucasus. Courier Forschungsinstitut Sencken-berg 181, 241–248.

Blackwell, B.A.B., Liang, S., Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Skinner, A.R., and Blickstein, J.I.B. 2005. ESR at Treugol’naya Cave, Northern Caucasus Mt., Russia: Dating Russia’s oldest archaeological site and paleocli-matic change in oxygen Isotope Stage 11. Applied Ra-diation and Isotopes 62, 237–245.

Bolikhovskaya, N.S., Molodkov, A.N., 2002. Reconstruction of development of Pleistocene paleoclimatic events on the data of palynological and electron-paramagnet-res-onance research in the territory of Northern Eurasia. Archaeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia 2 (10), 2–21 (in Russian).

Bordes, F. 1956. Some observation on the Pleistocene suc-cession in the Somme valley. Proceedings of the Prehisto-ric Society 22, 1–5.

Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. Memoires de l’Institut Prehistoriques de l’Universite de Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux.

Bordes, F. 1968. The Old Stone Age, New York.Bosinski, G. 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: West-

ern Central Europe. In: Roebroeks, W. and Kolfschoten, T. (Eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe. Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Workshop at Tau-tavel (France), 1993, University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 103–127.

Bosinski, G. 200–2001. El Paleolitico en Europa Central. (The Middle Palaeolithic in Central Europe). Zephyrvs, Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueologia LIII-LIV, 79–142.

Bosinski, G., Scelinskij, V., Kulakov, S., Kindler, L., 2003. Bo-gatyri (Sinaja Balka) – Ein altpalaolithischer Fundplatz auf der Taman-Halbinsel (Rusland). Veroffentlichungen des Landesamtes fur Archaologie 57, 79–89.

Breuil, H. 1932. Les industries a eclat du paleolithique an-

cien. Le Clactonien. Prehistoire 1, 125–190. Burdukiewicz, J.M. and Ronen, A. 2003. Research problems

of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic small tool assem-blages. In: Burdukiewicz, J.M. and Ronen, A. (Eds.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant, BAR S1115, pp. 235–238.

Darlas, A. 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: the Bal-kans. In: Roebroeks, W. and Kolfschoten, T. (Eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe. Proceedings of the Europe-an Science Foundation Workshop at Tautavel (France), 1993, University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 51–59.

Debenath, A. and Dibble, H.L. 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology, Volume 1: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Derevianko, A.P. 2006. The Lower Paleolithic Small Tool Industry in Eurasia: Migration or Convergent Evolu-tion? Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 1(25), 2–32.

Derevianko, A.P, Zenin, V.N., and Anoikin, A.A. 2006. An Early Paleolithic micro-industry of Darvagchai-1 oc-cupation: morphology and preliminary classification. In: Derevianko, A.P. and Nokhrina, T.I. (Eds.), Man and space in the Stone Age cultures of Eurasia, Novosibirsk (in Russian).

Doronichev, V.B. 2000. Lower Paleolithic occupation of the Northern Caucasus. In: Lordkipanidze, D., Bar-Yosef, o., and otte, M. (Eds.), Early Humans at the Gates of Eu-rope, Proceedings of the first international symposium, Dmanisi, Tbilisi (Georgia), September 1998, ERAUL 92, pp. 67–77.

Doronichev, V.B., 2001. Initial occupation of Eastern Eu-rope. Don Archaeology 3-4(12-13), 6–23 (in Russian).

Doronichev, V.B. 2004. The Early Paleolithic of Caucasus: between Europe and Asia. In Stoliar, A.D. (Ed.), Nevs-kiy archaeology-historiography collection to 75 years of can-didate of historical sciences A.A.Formozov, St.Petersburg, pp. 234–261 (in Russian).

Doronichev, V.B. and Golovanova, L.V. 2003. Bifacial tools in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of the Caucasus and their contexts. In: Dibble, H. and Soressi, M. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp. 77–107.

Doronichev, V.B., Blackwell, B.A., Golovanova, L.V., Levkovskaya, G.M., and Pospelova, G.A. 2004. Treugol’naya Cave in the Northern Caucasus, Russia: Its Chronology, Paleoenvironments, Industries, and Relationship to the Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Eu-rope. Eurasian Prehistory 2(1), Cambridge – Krakow, 77–144.

Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V., Baryshnikov, G.F., Blackwell, B.A.B., Garutt, N.V., Levkovskaya, G.M., Molodkov, A.N., Nesmeyanov, S.A., Pospelova, G.A., and Hoffecker, J.F. 2007. Treugol’naya Cave. The Early Paleolithic in Caucasus and Eastern Europe, St. Petersburg (in Russian).

Eritsian, B.G. 1972. on question of definition of the Lower Paleolithic cultures in Armenian highland. In: Stone Age


of the Middle Asia and Kazakhstan, Tashkent, pp. 24–28 (in Russian).

Gabunia, M. 2000. on Ancient Man in the volcanic Moun-tainous Region of South Georgia. In: Lordkipanidze, D., Bar-Yosef, o., and otte, M. (Eds.), Early Humans at the Gates of Europe, Proceedings of the first internation-al symposium, Dmanisi, Tbilisi (Georgia), September 1998, ERAUL 92, pp. 43–47.

Gabunia, L.K., Joris, o., Justus, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Mus-chelishvili, A., Nioradze, M., Swisher III, C.C., and Ve-kua, A.K., 1999. Neue Hominidenfunde des Altpaleo-lithschen Fundplatzes Dmanisi (Georgien, Kaukasus) im Kontext Aktualler Grabungsergebnisse. Archdolo-gisches Korrespondenzblatt 29, 451–488.

Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Swisher III, C.C., Ferring, R., Justus, A., Nioradze, M., Tvalchrelidze, M., Antуn, S.C., Bosinski, G., Joris, o., de Lumley, M-A., Majsuradze, G., and Mouskhelishvili, A., 2000a. Earli-est Pleistocene Hominid Cranial Remains from Dmani-si, Republic of Georgia: Taxonomy, Geological Setting, and Age. Science 288, 1019–1025.

Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Ferring, R., Justus, A., Maisuradze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nio-radze, M., Sologashvili, D., Swisher III, C.C., and Tval-chrelidze, M., 2000b. Current research on the hominid site of Dmanisi. In: Lordkipanidze, D., Bar-Yosef, o., and otte, M. (Eds.), Early Humans at the Gates of Eu-rope, Proceedings of the first international symposium, Dmanisi, Tbilisi (Georgia), September 1998, ERAUL 92, pp. 13–27.

Gilead, D. 1970. Handaxe Industries in Israel and the Near East. World Archaeology 2, 1–11.

Gladilin, V.N. 1976. Problems of the Early Paleolithic of Eastern Europe, Kiev (in Russian).

Gladilin, V.N. and Sitliviy, V.I. 1990. Acheulean in Central Europe, Kiev (in Russian).

Golovanova, L.V. 1994. Problems of the Early to Middle Paleolithic transition in the North-western Caucasus, St.Petersburg (in Russian).

Golovanova, L.V. 2000. Late Acheulean of the Northern Caucasus and the Problem of Transition to the Middle Palaeoolithic. In: Lordkipanidze, D., Bar-Yosef, o., and otte, M. (Eds.), Early Humans at the Gates of Europe, Pro-ceedings of the first international symposium, Dma-nisi, Tbilisi (Georgia), September 1998, ERAUL 92, pp. 49–65.

Golovanova, L.V. and Doronichev, V.B. 2003. The Middle Paleolithic of the Caucasus. Journal of World Prehistory 17(1), 71–140.

Goren-Inbar, N., 2000. The Gesher Benot Ya’aqov Acheu-lian site – additional evidence for the “Out of Africa” behavioral model. In: Lordkipanidze, D., Bar-Yosef, o., and otte, M. (Eds.), Early Humans at the Gates of Eu-rope, Proceedings of the first international symposium, Dmanisi, Tbilisi (Georgia), September 1998, ERAUL 92, p. 157.

Guseinov, M.M. 1985. The Early Paleolithic of Azerbaijan (Ku-ruchai culture and stages of its development), Baku. (in(in

Russian).Haesaerts, P. and Koulakovska, L. 2006. La sequence pe-

dosedimentaire de Korolevo (Ukraine Transcarpati-que): contexte chronostratigraphique et chronologigue. In: Kulakovska, L.V. (Ed.), The European Middle Paleo-lithic, Kiev, pp. 21–37.

Hidjrati, N.I., Kimball, L.R., and Koetje, T., 2003. Middle and Late Pleistocene investigations of Myshtulagty Lagat (Weasel Cave) North ossetia, Russia. Antiquity 77(298), 1–5.

Hoffecker, J.F. 2002. Desolate Landscapes: Ice-Age Settle-ment in Eastern Europe, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.

Hoffecker, J.F., Baryshnikov, G.F., and Doronichev, V.B. 2003. Large Mammal Taphonomy of the Middle Pleis-tocene hominid occupation at Treugol’naya Cave (Northern Caucasus). Quaternary Science Reviews 22 (5-7), 595–607.

Hublin, J.-J. 1998. Climatic Changes, Paleogeography, and the Evolution of the neandertals. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., and Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and modern Hu-mans in Western Asia, New York, pp. 295–310.

Kalandadze, A.N. 1965. Tsona Cave and its Culture. Caves of Georgia 3, 32–36 (in Russian).

Kazarian, R.P. 1986. The Upper Acheulean location of Atis I. Archaeological discoveries of 1984, Moscow, 433–434 (in Russian).

Kikodze, Z.K. 1986. Biface-cleaver in the Acheulean of Cau-casus. Herald of State Museum of Georgia 38-В, 55–63 (in Russian).

Klein, R.G. 1966. Chellean and Acheulean on the Territory of the Soviet Union. A Critical Review of the Evidence as Presented in the Literature. American Anthropologist 68 (2), 1–45.

Klein, R.G. 1989. The Human Career. Human Biological and Cultural Origins, Chicago.

Kolesnik, A. 1998. Handaxes in the Middle Paleolithic of East Europe. In:In: Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes, ERAUL 85, Liège, pp. 77–112.

Korobkov, I.I. 1978. Paleolithic of eastern Mediterranean.Paleolithic of eastern Mediterranean. In: Paleolithic of the Near and Middle East (Series Paleo-lithic of the World), Leningrad, pp. 8–185 (in Russian).

Kozlowski, J.K. 2003. From Bifaces to Leaf Points. In: Dib-ble, H. and Soressi, M. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, University of Pennsylva-nia Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Phila-delphia, pp. 149–164.

Kukharchuk, Yu.V. and Mesiats, V.A. 1991. The Early Paleo-lithic of Ukraine Polesie. Jitomirskaya site (Acheulean), Kiev (in Russian).

Kulakov, S.A., Shchelinski, V.E., and Tsibry, V.V. 2005. The study of the Early Paleolithic occupation Bogatiri (Tamanian peninsula). Archeological discoveries 2004, Moscow, 306–308 (in Russian).

Kulakovskaya, L.V. 2003. New aspects in the research of Korolevo. Archaeological Almanac 13, Donetsk, 158–169–169 (in Russian).

Laville, H., Rigaud, J.-P., and Sackett, J.R. 1980. Rock Shelters


of the Perigord, New York.Liubin, V.P. 1960. The Lower Paleolithic sites in South os-

etia. Materials and Research in Archaeology 79, 9–78 (in Russian).

Liubin, V.P. 1969. The Early Paleolithic in Caucasus. In: Na-ture and development of the primitive society in the territory of European part of USSR, Moscow, pp. 154–168 (in Rus-sian).

Liubin, V.P. 1984. The Early Paleolithic in Caucasus. In: Pa-leolithic of the USSR. Moscow, pp. 45–93 (in Russian).

Liubin, V.P. 1989. Paleolithic in Caucasus. In: Paleolithic in Caucasus and Northern Asia, Leningrad, pp. 9–142 (in Russian).

Liubin, V.P. 1998a. The Acheulean epoch in Caucasus, St. Pe-tersburg (in Russian).

Liubin, V.P. 1998b. Problems of the initial human occupa-tion of Caucasus and Eurasia. Archaeological Messages 5, St.Petersburg, 15–41 (in Russian).

Lioubine, V.P. 2002. L’Acheuléen du Caucase. ERAUL 93, Liège.

Liubin, V.P. and Beliaeva, E.V. 2004a. A Homo Erectus occu-pation in Kudaro 1 cave. Central Caucasus, St.Petersburg (in Russian).

Liubin, V.P. and Beliaeva, E.V. 2004b. A discovery of traces of the Lower Paleolithic on island mountains of Pyati-goria (Stavropol krai). In: Problems of primitive archaeol-ogy of Eurasia. To the 75 years of A.A.Formozov, Moscow, pp. 104–111 (in Russian).

Liubin, V.P. and Beliaeva, E.V. 2006. The early prehistory of Caucasus, St.Petersburg (in Russian).

Lumley de, M-A., Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., and Lordkipani-dze, D. 2006. Les restes de Pliocene final et du debut du Pleistocene inferieur de Dmanissi, Georgie (1991-2000). I – Les cranes, D 2280, D 2282, D 2700. L’Anthropologie 110 (1), 1–110.–110..

Lumley de, H. and Barsky, D. 2004. Evolution des carac-teres technologiques et typologiques des industries li-thiques dans la stratigraphie de la Caune de l’Arago. L’Anthropologie 108, 185–237.

Lumley de, H., Nioradze, M., Barsky, D., Cauche, D., Ce-liberti, V., Nioradze, G., Notter, o., Zvania, D., and Lordkipanidze, D. 2005. Les industries lithiques preol-dowayennes du debut du Pleistocene inferieur du site de Dmanissi en Georgie. L’Anthropologie 109 (1), 1–182.–182..

Lumley-Woodyear, H. 1969. Le Paleolithique inferieur et moyen du midi Mediterraneen dans son cadre geologique, Paris.

Matiukhin, A.E. 2001. Technological characteristic of mac-characteristic of mac-rotools from the Paleolithic site of Satani-Dar in Arme-nia. Archaeological Collection 35, 15–31 (in Russian).

Molodkov, A.N. 2001. ESR dating evidence for early man at a Lower Palaeolithic cave-site in the Northern Cau-casus as derived from terrestrial mollusc shells. Quater-nary Science Reviews 20, 1051–1055.

Nesmeyanov, S.A. 1999. Geomorfologicheskie Aspekty Pa-leoekologii Gornogo Paleolita (na primere Zapadnogo Kavka-za), Nauchnyi Mir, Moscow (in Russian).

Nesmeyanov, S.A. and Golovanova, L.V. 1988. Paleolithic and

geomorphology of the middle Belaya River. Questions of ar-chaeology in Adigeia, Maikop, 23–51 (in Russian).

Obermaier, H. 1913. Prehistoric man, St.Petersburg (in Rus-sian).

Obermaier, H. 1925. El hombre fosil. Segunda edicion, refun-dida y ampliada. Comision de investigaciones paleonto-ion de investigaciones paleonto-logicos y prehystoricos 9.9.

Pospelova, G.A. 2000. Geomagnetic excurses of Bruhnes chrone and global climatic oscillations. Reports of RAN, Physics of the Solid Earth 8, 3–14 (in Russian).

Pospelova, G.A. and Levkovskaya, G.M. 1994. Reflection of climatic changes in magnetic susceptibility of sedimen-tary rocks. Reports of RAN 334 (2), 222–227 (in Russian).

Pospelova, G.A., Sharonova, Z.V., Mironov, T.V., and Levkovskaya, G.M. 1996. Paleomagnetic study and cli-matic record in sedimentary rocks of the Treugol’naya Cave, Northern Caucasus. Reports of RAN, Physics of the Solid Earth 32 (9), 754–765.

Pospelova, G.A., Kapichka, A., Liubin, V.P., and Sharono-va, Z.V. 2001. Applying of scalar magnetic parameters of rocks for paleoclimate reconstructions in a period of sediment formation in caves Kudaro I and Kudaro III (South ossetia, Georgia). Reports of RAN, Physics of the Solid Earth 10, 76–86 (in Russian).

Potapova, O.R. and Baryshnikov, G.F. 1993. Birds from the Acheulean occupation in Treugolnaya cave in the Northern Caucasus. Works of Zoological institute RAN 249, 48–65 (in Russian).

Praslov, N.D. 1968. The Early Paleolithic of north-eastern Azov Sea shore and Lower Don, Leningrad (in Russian).

Praslov, N.D. 1984. The Early Paleolithic of Russian plain and Crimea. In: Paleolithic of the USSR, Moscow, pp. 94–134 (in Russian).

Praslov, N.D. 1995. The earliest occupation of the Russian Plain: A shot note. In: Roebroeks, W. and Kolfschoten, T. (Eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe. Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Workshop at Tau-tavel (France), 1993, University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 61–66.

Praslov, N.D. 2001. Paleolithic of Don basin (problems of stra-tigraphy, chronology and cultural development). Thesis, St.Petersburg (in Russian).

Roebroeks, W. and Kolfschoten, T. 1995. The earliest oc-cupation of Europe: A reappraisal of artefactual and chronological evidence. In: Roebroeks, W. and Kolf-schoten, T. (Eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe. Pro-ceedings of the European Science Foundation Work-shop at Tautavel (France), 1993, University of Leiden, Leiden, pp. 297–315.

Schwarcz, H.P. and Rink, W.J. 2001. Dating methods for sedi-ment of caves and rockshelters. Geoarchaeology 16 (4), 355–371.

Shchelinsky, V.E. 2005. The oldest Early Paleolithic locations in Kuban River. Materials and Studies on Kuban Archaeol-ogy 5, 415–429 (in Russian).

Shshelinsky, V.E. 2007. The Paleolithic of the Black Sea shore of Northwest Caucasus (the open air sites), St.Petersburg (in Russian)


Shchelinsky, V.E. and Kulakov, S.A. 2005. Bagatiry occupa-tion in Tamanian peninsula – the oldest Early Paleo-lithic site in Eastern Europe. In: Proceedings of the forth Kuban archaeological conference, Krasnodar, pp. 304–309 (in Russian).

Stepanchuk, V.N. 2006. Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Ukraine, Chernivtsy (in Russian).

Tappen, М., Adler, D.S., Ferring, C.R., Gabunia, M., Ve-kua, A., and Swisher III, C.C. 2002. Akhalkalaki: The Taphonomy of An Early Pleistocene Locality in the Re-public of Georgia. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 1367–1391.

Tashkiran, H. 1998. The distribution of bifaces in Anatolia. In: Prehistoire d’Anatolie, Genese de deux mondes, Liege, ERAUL 85, pp. 569–577.

Tushabramishvili, D.M. 1984. Paleolithic in Georgia. Herald of State Museum of Georgia 37-В, 5–27 (in Russian).

Velichko, A.A., Antonova, G.V., and Zelikson, E.M. 1980. A paleogeography of Azykh site – the oldest primitive man occupation in the territory of USSR. Reports of Acad-emy of Sciences, Geographical Series 3, 20–35 (in Russian).

Wangengeim, E.A., Pevzner, M.A., and Tesakov, A.S. 1990. Magnetic and biostratigraphical research in a strata-

region of Psekups mammal faunal complex. Bulletin of the Commission for the Study of the Quaternary Period 59, 81–93 (in Russian).

Wangengeim, E.A., Vekua, M.L., Jegallo, V.I., Pevzner, M.A., Taktakishvili, I.G., and Tesakov, A.S. 1991. A po-sition of Tamanian faunal complex in stratigraphical and magneto-chronological scales. Bulletin of the Com-mission for the Study of the Quaternary Period 60, 31–52 (in Russian).

Wymer, J.J. 1982. The Palaeolithic Age, London.Zamiatnin, S.N. 1951. on the appearance of local differ-

ences in culture of the Paleolithic period. Works of the Ethnography Institute XVI, 89–152 (in Russian).

Zelikson, E.M. and Gubonina, Z.P. 1985. A displacement of altitude zonality as a basis for reconstruction of cli-matic changes in mountain states. In: Methods of climate reconstruction, Moscow, pp. 37–45 (in Russian).

Zubakov, V.A., Kulikov, o.A., and Pisarevskiy, S.A. 1985. Trans-Don climate-stratigraphical correlation. In: Side formations of continental glaciations. Proceedings of VIIth All-Union meeting, Voronej – Moscow, pp. 134–136 (in Russian).

The Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus: A Reappraisal of the Data and New Approaches

Documents